UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 96-6788

BYRON CARLTON CUMBER,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, District Judge.
(CR-88-26, CA-96-48-7-BR)

Submitted: December 24, 1996

Decided: January 10, 1997

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Bryon Carlton Cumber, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Edwin Hamilton,
III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Byron Carlton Cumber filed this motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, attacking the revo-
cation of his term of supervised release. Upon revocation, the district
court sentenced Cumber to twenty-four months imprisonment consec-
utive to a state sentence he was serving, and ordered all restitution
due. This Court affirmed the revocation on appeal. United States v.
Cumber, No. 95-5024 (4th Cir. Sept. 25, 1995) (unpublished). In this
§ 2255 proceeding, Cumber raises four challenges to the original sen-
tence and revocation of supervised release. We find merit in none of
them.

Cumber attacks the original sentence on nonconstitutional grounds.
We decline to review these claims in a collateral attack, as they do
not raise a fundamental defect resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
United States v. Addonizio, 

, 185 (1979). His allegation
that the sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release violates
the Double Jeopardy Clause lacks merit, as supervised release and its
revocation are all part of the punishment for the original offense.
United States v. Woodrup, 

, 362 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
___ U.S. ___, 

(U.S. Oct. 15, 1996) (No. 96-6025).

We do not find that Cumber's sentence was excessive, as it was
well within the bounds set forth in 18 U.S.C.A.§ 3583(e)(3) (West
Supp. 1996), and U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3 (1995). In addition, the district
court properly clarified the ambiguous oral judgment by stating in the
judgment and commitment order that the sentence would be served
consecutive to the state sentence Cumber was serving, as required by
U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f).

Therefore, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense 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.

DISMISSED

                    2