1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Un ited States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magi strate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-2076

___________ United States of America, *
* Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Bart Ellis Shoupe, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 7,2008 Filed: November 17, 2008

___________ Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Bart Ellis Shoupe appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Shoupe sought to cha llenge a 1991 federal c onviction for which he has served the sentence, because that conviction was used to enhance his sentence for another conviction in 2003.-2- We conclude that the district court did not err in deny ing coram nobis relief. SeeUnited States v. Comacho-Bordes , 94 F.3d 1168, 1173 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review; coram nobis relief is granted onl y where necessary to achieve justice and to correct fundamental errors). We agree with the district court that Shoupe’s claims are barred by the abuse-of-the-w rit doctrine, as he could have raised them at the appropriate time on direct appeal or in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 before completion of his supervised release. Seeid. at 1172-73 (abuse-of-the-writ principles apply to coram nobis relief); Azzone v. United States , 341 F.2d 417, 419 (8th Cir. 1965 (per curiam) (coram nobis may not be used as substitute for appeal); cf. McCleskey v. Zant , 499 U.S. 467, 489 (1991) (petitioner cannot raise claim in subsequent petition that he c ould have raised earlier). S houpe’s assertion that his pro se status prevented him from discovering earlier the investigation report on which he based his claims does not cons titute excusable neglect for failing to raise the claims, especially given that Shoupe was present at the suppression hearing where the report was, in fact, used. See McCleskey , 499 U.S. at 490, 493 (petitioner must show legitimate excuse for failing to raise clai m at appropriate time); United States v. Kwan , 407 F.3d 1005, 1011 (9th Cir. 2005) (to qualify for co ram nobis relief, petitioner must have valid reason for not attacking conviction earlier); cf. Smittie v. Lockhart , 843 F.2d 295, 298 (8th Cir. 1988) (pe titioner’s pro se status and limited educational background are not sufficient cause for failing to pursue state-court remedies).
Further, the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in denying some of Shoupe’s discovery requests or in declining to review the file in camera before ruling. SeeExecutive Air Taxi Corp. v. City of Bismarck , 518 F.3d 562, 569 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for discovery ruling); United States v. Price , 542 F.3d 617, 621-22 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for di strict court’s refusal to conduct in camera review). Last, we find no abuse of discreti on in the denial of either Shoupe’s request for counsel, seeStevens v. Redwing , 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review; relevant factors); Steele v. United States , 518 F.3d 986, 988 (8th Cir. 2008)-3- (constitutional right to counsel extends to firs t appeal of right and no further), or his motion to reconsider, seeArnold v. Wood , 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review).
The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________