UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 95-7791

HAYWOOD WILLIAMS, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-80-14-N, CA-95-957-2)

Submitted: February 7, 1996

Decided: February 29, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Haywood Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Haywood Williams, Jr., appeals from district court orders denying
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion and denying reconsideration
thereof. We affirm.

Regarding the substance of the § 2255 motion, Williams's claim
that his convictions under 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 846, 848 (West 1981 &
Supp. 1995) violate the Double Jeopardy Clause is frivolous. This
court vacated his § 846 conviction in a prior decision and properly left
the § 848 conviction undisturbed. United States v. Williams, No. 88-
7400, 

at **1 (4th Cir. June 21, 1991) (as amended
July 15, 1991), cert. denied, 

(1991); see also United
States v. Johnson, 

, 1163 (4th Cir.) (only lesser-included
offense should be vacated), cert. denied, 

(U.S.
1995).

Williams's second claim, that the § 848 conviction cannot stand
because the § 846 violation served as a predicate offense is also merit-
less. The § 846 violation may serve as a predicate offense. United
States v. Heater, 

, 318 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 

(U.S. 1996).

Regarding the motion for reconsideration, Williams contended that
the district court misconstrued the motion as one under § 2255 rather
than one under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35. The district court properly con-
strued Williams's Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion as one under § 2255
because the only cognizable Rule 35 claim was frivolous and the
other claim was properly considered only under § 2255. United States
v. Pavlico, 

, 443 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 

(1992). Williams's other allegations in his motion for reconsideration
regarded claims not raised in the § 2255 motion and were, therefore,
inappropriate on motion for reconsideration. See Collison v. Interna-
tional Chem. Workers Union, Local 217, 

, 236 (4th Cir.
1994).

Therefore, we affirm the district court orders denying Williams's
§ 2255 motion and denying reconsideration of that order. We dis-

                    2
pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3