### The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge 1 

### for the District of Minnesota. ___________ No. 96-2348

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Robert Dean Campbell, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 31, 1996 Filed: November 8, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Robert Dean Campbell appeals the sentence the distri ct court imposed 1 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) following remand from this court. We affirm.
Campbell pleaded guilty to conspiring to manufacture and posses s mariju ana with intent to distribute. For sentencing purposes, Campbel l stipul atedhis criminal activity involved 510 marijuana plants. Th e district court, apply ing a ratio of one kilogram per plant as it was then required to do, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(6) (Nov. 1994), found Campbell was accountable for 510 k ilograms of marijuana; calculated a Guidelines range of 57 to 71 months; f ound Campbell qualified for a sentence less than the

### -2-

applicable mandatory minimum 60-month sentence, see U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2; and sentenced Campbell to 57 months imprisonment.
Campb ell appealed and we remanded to permit the district court t o determine if Campbell was entitled to a reduction in his sentence unde r section 3582(c)(2) ba sed on a retroactive Guidelines amendment to section 2D1.1( c) (Amendment 516), which was enacted after the district cour t sentenced Campbell and which replaced the one-kilogram-per-plant ratio wit h
a ratio of 100 grams per plant. United States v. Campbell , No. 95-2464, slip op. at 1-3 (8th Cir. Mar. 11, 1996) (unpublished per curiam). O n remand, Campbell noted that when he was arrested , he had harvested all but 29 of the 510 marijuana plants. Campbell arguedthat the court should use the 100-grams-per-plant ratio for the 29 unharve sted plants and the actual weight of the harvested plants, which he asserte d was 84.1 grams, and thus hold himaccountable for roughly 2.98 kilograms of marijuana. Th e gove rnment responded that the district court lacked jurisdiction unde r section 3582(c)(2) to make new findings as to th e weight of the marijuana.
The district court, after determining that Amendment 516 shouldapply retroactively, concluded that section 3582(c)(2) did not authorize it to recalc ulate the weight of the marijuana using the method Campbel l advocated. In any event, the court said that if it did have the authority , it would reach the same result. Thus, the court found Campbell wa s accoun table for 51 kilograms of marijuana, which produced a Guideline s range of 24 to 30 months, and sentenced him to 24 months imprisonment

. Campbell appeals.

We need not decide whether this cour t's remand or section 3582(c)(2) permittedthe district court to recalculate the weight of the marijuana, because Campbell was not entitled to have his Guidelines range determined by co mbining the actual weight of the harvested marijuana with the 2. 9 kilograms assigned to the unharvested plants. See United States v. Wilson , 49 F.3d 406, 410

### -3-

(8thCir.) (rejecting argument that "plant count to weight conversion of § 2D1.1(c)" applied only to live plants, and holding that where evidence shows d efendant was involved in planting, cultivating, and harvestin g marijuana, applicatio n of "conversion" is appropriate), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 384 (1995). Thus, we conclude the district court correctl y calculated the weight of the marijuana and did n ot abuse its discretion in reducing C ampbell's sentence from 57 months to 24 months. See Unite d States v. Pardue , 36 F.3d 429, 430 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (standard of review), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1969 (1995).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.