FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 FEBRUARY 14, 2011

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-13565 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 1:03-cr-00045-DHB-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

TOBIAS ANTONIO FRANK, 

a.k.a. “Charlie”,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Southern District of Georgia

 ________________________

(February 14, 2011)

Before HULL, MARCUS and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Tobias A. Frank, a federal pro se prisoner, appeals the denial of his motion for

relief under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), in which he argued that he was

incorrectly deemed a career offender and had no other adequate means to obtain

relief. The district court construed his motion as one seeking relief under the writ of

audita querela. On appeal, Frank argues that he is eligible for relief under the writ of

coram nobis and that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 would not provide adequate relief because the

§ 2255 statute of limitations has expired. After thorough review, we affirm.

We review the denial of a writ of audita querela de novo and the denial of a

writ of coram nobis for abuse of discretion. United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172,

1174 (11th Cir. 2005) (writ of audita querela); Alikhani v. United States, 200 F.3d

732, 734 (11th Cir. 2000) (writ of coram nobis).

The All Writs Act allows “all courts established by Act of Congress [to] issue

all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable

to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). However, the courts do

not have unfettered discretion to issue writs under this act:

The All Writs Act is a residual source of authority to issue writs that are

not otherwise covered by statute. Where a statute specifically addresses

the particular issue at hand, it isthat authority, and not the All Writs Act,

that is controlling. Although that Act empowers federal courts to

fashion extraordinary remedies when the need arises, it does not

authorize themto issue ad hoc writs whenever compliance with statutory

procedures appears inconvenient or less appropriate.

2
Pa. Bureau of Corr. v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 474 U.S. 34, 43 (1985). “[A] writ of

audita querela may not be granted when relief is cognizable under [28 U.S.C.] §

2255.” Holt, 417 F.3d at 1175. Relief under the writ of coram nobis, as a matter of

law, is unavailable to persons in custody because such persons may avail themselves

of the statutory remedies in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Brown, 117 F.3d 471,

475 (11th Cir. 1997). Federal prisoners seeking to collaterally attack their

convictions and sentences generally must do so under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255; see also Sawyer v. Holder, 326 F.3d 1363, 1365 (11th Cir. 2003).

As applied here, Frank is not eligible for relief under a writ of audita querela

because as a federal prisoner attacking the legality of his sentence, Frank was eligible

to move for § 2255 relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Therefore, in this case, “relief is

cognizable under § 2255.” Holt, 417 F.3d at 1175. Second, Frank is ineligible for

1

relief under the writ of coram nobis because he is currently a federal prisoner. See

Brown, 117 F.3d at 475. Finally, because Frank is proceeding pro se, the district

court could have liberally construed his motion under the All Writs Act as a § 2255

 Frank’s argument that he was ineligible for § 2255 relief because the statute of 1

limitations has expired is without merit. Like the appellant in Holt, Frank seeks to challenge the

legality of his sentence. See id. There was cognizable relief under § 2255 for the appellant in

Holt even though he could not obtain that relief because of the procedural rules restricting

successive § 2255 applications. See id. Likewise, there is cognizable relief for Frank under §

2255 even though he likely cannot obtain that relief because the § 2255 statute of limitations has

expired. 

3
motion. See Holt, 417 F.3d at 1175. However, because Frank concedes that the §

2255 statute of limitations has expired, the district court correctly denied his motion

instead of construing it as filed under § 2255. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

4