UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

OWEN BOLLING,
Petitioner,

v.

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS'
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
                                                                 No. 99-1364
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR;
INDIAN MOUNTAIN COAL COMPANY;
OLD REPUBLIC LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Benefits Review Board.
(CA-91-1705-BLA)

Submitted: August 17, 1999

Decided: September 20, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Owen Bolling, Petitioner Pro Se. Christian P. Barber, Barry H.
Joyner, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washing-
ton, D.C.; Mark Elliott Solomons, Laura Metcoff Klaus, ARTER &
HADDEN, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Owen Bolling seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's
("Board") decision and order affirming as modified the administrative
law judge's ("ALJ") decision ordering Bolling to repay an overpay-
ment of black lung benefits. Our review of the record discloses that
the Board's decision is based on substantial evidence and is without
reversible error. Contrary to Bolling's assertion on appeal, the Board
had no obligation to remand this case to the ALJ for further fact-
finding. The Board reviewed this case following our decision revers-
ing and remanding with instructions to direct repayment of the over-
payment if there were no contested issues to decide. Because all
issues relating to the amount of the overpayment and Bolling's legal
obligation to repay it were previously decided and uncontested, the
Board carried out this Court's instructions and directed repayment of
the overpayment.

Bolling's filings on appeal indicate that he desires modification of
the decision in this case. We note that if Bolling seeks to avail himself
of the remedy prescribed at 20 C.F.R. § 725.310 (1998), he must file
a proper application with the district director. See 20 C.F.R.
§ 725.310(b) (1998). We express no opinion concerning whether
modification is a viable remedy in this case. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     2
