OPINION

Jimmy Brice appeals the denial of his motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (1994), by margin order dated March 28, 2001. Brice’s motion alleged both a double jeopardy violation and impermissible double counting under the Sentencing Guidelines in the calculation of his sentence. However, Brice’s motion raises no basis for proceeding under § 3582(c)(2), as his motion fails to identify any guidelines range modified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o) (1994) as required by § 3582(c)(2). Furthermore, to the extent Brice seeks collateral review of his conviction and sentence on the aforementioned bases, we find Brice cannot obtain relief on either. With respect to Brice’s double jeopardy challenge, a conviction under both 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(d) (West 2000) and § 924(c) for the same offense does not constitute double jeopardy. United States v. Shavers, 820 F.2d 1375, 1377-78 (4th Cir. 1987). Furthermore, Brice’s claim concerning the computation of his sentence under the Guidelines alleges non-constitutional error which may not now be assert *156 ed on collateral review. See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Brice’s § 3582(c)(2) motion and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.