The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Chief Judge, United Sta tes District Court for 1 the Northern District of Iowa. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-1886

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Eugene Myers, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 6, 1997 Filed: July 16, 1997

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

___________ PER CURIAM. Euge ne Myers appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 1 358 2(c)(2) motion to modify his sentence pursuant to a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm. Myers masterminded an extensive marijuana growing operation on his Io wa farm between f

all 1991 and spring 1992, funded through wire transfers from Costa Rica n accounts. In December 1992, Myers was convicted by a jury of manufacturing-2-

marijua na

and conspiring to manufacture marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C

. §§ 841(b)(1)(B) and 846; money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A); conspi ring to commit interstate and foreign travel or transportation in facilitation o f unlawful activities in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1952, and 371; and crimina l forfeiture. He was sentenced to concurrent imprisonment terms of 120 months on the grouped dru g and money laundering counts and 60 months on the conspiracy count , concurren t

supervised release terms of five and three years, and a $2,000 fine. O n appeal, we affirmed Myers’ conviction. See United States v. Myers , 21 F.3d 826, 827- 28 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 513 U.S. 1086 (1995). Effective November 1, 1995, section 2D1.1(c) of the Se ntencing Guidelines was amen ded, changing the presumptive weight of marijuana plants--where fifty or mor e pl ants are involved--from one kilogram per plant to 100 grams per plant. See United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual App. C, Amend. 516 (Nov. 1995). Amendment 516 was mad e retroactive by section 1B1.10(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines. Myers moved to modify his sentence based on the amendment. At a hearing held April 18, 1996, after reviewing the Guidelines range tha t would result from

applying the amendment, the district court denied Myers’ motion, citing a number of “close calls” decided in Myers’s favor at the original sentencing, Myers ’ extensive involvement in the offenses, his obstructive behavior, and his lack of remorse. Myers argues that absent a valid reason for departure, the district court wa s required to sentence within the Guidelines range yielded by applying Amendment 516 retroactively, which he asserts is 70 to 87 months. A district court’s decision whether to apply Amendment 516 retroactively to reduce a sentence previously imposed , howeve r, is discretionary. See United States v. Risch , 87 F.3d 240, 243 (8th Cir

. 19 96). The court is required only to “consider” the sentence it would have impose d had t he amendment been in effect at the time of sentencing. See USSG § 1B1.10(b), (c), p.s. (Nov. 1995); United States v. Ursery , 109 F.3d 1129, 1137 (6th Cir. 1997)-3-

(remandin g for consideration of Amendment 516, but noting sentence not erroneou s because it was based on Guidelines in effect at time of ori ginal sentence; “district court has t he discretion to deny a section 3582(c)(2) motion, even if the retroactiv e amendment has lowered

the guideline range”). We conclude the district court did not abuse it s discretion in denying Myers’ section 3582 motion, after such consideration. See United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas , 105 F.3d 981, 982 (5th Cir. 1997) (pe r curiam) (standard of review). Myers also ar gues that the district court erred in failing specifically to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (setting forth seven factors court mus t consider in sentencing). We conclude the comments made by the district court a t sentencing indicate it considered the section 3553(a) factors in denyi ng Myers’s section 3582 motion. See18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Unite d States v. Adams , 104 F.3d 1028, 1031 (8th Cir. 1997) (no authority requires court to mech anically list § 3553(a) factors; must be evidence court considered relevant matters and stated some reason for its decision). Because Myers' pro se brief does not add to the arguments a dvanced by counsel, we deny his motion to file a pro se supplemental brief. S ee United States v. Martin , 59 F.3d767, 768 n.2 (8th Cir. 1995) (this court ordinarily does not accept pro se filings in counseled cases). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.