Case ID: f-appx_30/html/0142-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-7922.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 8, 2002.
    Decided Feb. 28, 2002.
    
      Howard Davis, pro se.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Howard Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying 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 petition 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 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.