firearm within the meaning of § 924(c)(1) in light of Bailey. Noting that a repre sented party must file pleadings through his attorney, the district court denied the motion without consideration of its contents and instructed the clerk to return the motion to Abdullah’s attorney of record. Abdullah’s private counsel never raised the Bailey argument on his behalf. Abdullah’s pro se attempt to challenge his conviction based on Bailey was insufficient to preserve our review of the claim. It was not properly raised before or ruled upon by the district court, and we find no unfairness or injustice in our conclusion that the claim was waived. A district court has no obligation to entertain pro se motions filed by a represented party. See United States v. Agofsky, 20 F.3d 866, 872 (8th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 909, 115 S.Ct. 280,
recognizing that although pro se litigant is generally held to same standards as party represented by attorney a court may consider pro se status when deciding whether partys conduct was result of conscious indifference because this determination turns on his state of mind holding defendants pro se motion to reduce sentence was not properly before the trial court when defendant was represented by counsel since defendant may not proceed both by counsel and pro se holding that a court commits no error in refusing to rule on pro se motions raised by a represented party holding that trial court erred in considering pro se motion for new trial filed when defendant was represented by counsel holding that a defendant proceeding pro se is bound by same rules as party represented by counsel and a court cannot allow pro se litigant lower standard of performance