UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7922
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HOWARD DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenwood. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-92-524, CA-01-2873-9-20RB)
Submitted: February 8, 2002 Decided: February 28, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Howard Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Howard Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny-
ing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2241 (1994), which
the district court construed as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the
district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and find no reversible error. To the extent Davis
claims on appeal that the district court failed to review his peti-
tion under § 1651, any error was harmless. A writ of error coram
nobis is available only when the petitioner is not in custody.
See, e.g., United States v. Sawyer, 239 F.3d 31, 37 (1st Cir.
2001). Because Davis is in federal custody and has filed a prior
§ 2255 motion, he may not circumvent the gatekeeping provisions of
28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001) by filing a petition
under § 1651. United States v. Noske, 235 F.3d 405, 406 (8th Cir.
2000). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district
court. United States v. Davis, Nos. CR-92-524; CA-01-2873-9-20RB
(D.S.C. Aug. 29, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
2