FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### March 25, 2019 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. BUEL DEAN HAMILTON, Defendant - Appellant. Nos. 18-5098 & 18-5099 (D.C. Nos. 4:88-CR-00034-JED-2, 4:13-CR-00073-JED-3) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BACHARACH , MURPHY , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this court has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Accordingly, we order the cases submitted without oral argument.

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral esto ppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.INTRODUCTION Buel Dean Hamilton filed a “Petition for Writs of Error Coram N obis.” Hamilton sought writs as to two sets of federal convictions: (1 ) a 1988 conviction for conspiracy to possess, pass, and conceal counterfeit obliga tions of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; and (2) 2013 convictio ns for maintaining a location to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S. C. § 856(a)(1), and possession with intent to distribute at least five grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii). The distr ict court denied issuance of the writ as to Hamilton’s 1988 conviction, concludi ng Hamilton’s jurisdictional arguments were entirely without merit. The district court dismissed Hamilton’s request for a writ of coram nobis as to the 2013 con victions, concluding such relief was unavailable because Hamilton was sti ll in federal custody on those convictions. Exercising jurisdiction pursuantto 28 U.S.C. 1291, this court affirms

. ANALYSIS Appeal No. 18-5098 Setting aside various procedural impediments to Hamilton obtain ing coram nobis relief as to his 1988 conviction, see, e.g. , United States v. Thody , 460 F. App’x 776, 778 (10th Cir. 2012) (unpublished disposition), the district court was clearly correct in concluding Hamilton’s petition is entirely w ithout merit. The jurisdictional arguments he makes as to his own, and the victim ’s, Native -2-American status are simply irrelevant because his conviction wa s not under an enclave law. See United States v. Brisk, 171 F.3d 514, 519-522, 520 n.4 (7th Cir. 1999) (explaining “distinction between enclave laws and federal laws of nationwide applicability”). Instead, his 1988 conviction was f or the violation of a general federal criminal provision applicable nationwide. Id. “Federal jurisdiction . . . extends . . . to crimes over which there is federal jurisdiction regardless of whether an Indian is involved.” United States v. Wheeler , 435 U.S. 313, 330 n.30 (1978). No. 18-5099 The district court correctly dismissed Hamilton’s coram nobis p etition as to his 2013 convictions because Hamilton is still incarcerated on those convictions. “[A] prisoner may not challenge a sentence or conviction for wh ich he is currently in custody through a writ of coram nobis.” United States v. Torres , 282 F.3d 1241, 1245 (10th Cir. 2002). 1

1 In the alternative, the district court noted that even if Hamil ton’s petition should be construed as arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, it wouldfail on the merits for the same reason his coram nobis petition failed as to his 1 988 conviction. Given that Hamilton does not appear to have filed a § 2255 moti on as to his 2013 convictions, we do not address the district court’s alternative rationale. See United States v. Kelly , 235 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (10th Cir. 2000) (noting limited circumstances in which a court should recharacterize petitions as arising under § 2255). Accordingly, this court denies as moot Hamilton’s request for a certificate of appealability. -3-CONCLUSION For those reasons set out above, the orders of the district court denying Hamilton’s petition for coram nobis in No. 18-5098 and dismissi ng Hamilton’s petition for coram nobis in No. 18-5099 are hereby AFFIRMED

. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge

-4-