of a controlled substance, a reconciliation which he contended was required by 18 U.S.C. § 927. “A petition for a writ of coram nobis provides a way to collaterally attack a criminal conviction for a person ... who is no longer ‘in custody’ and therefore cannot seek habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or § 2241.” Chaidez v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1103, 1106 n. 1, 185 L.Ed.2d 149 (2013). A petitioner is not entitled to coram nobis relief “unless relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was unavailable or would have been inadequate.” United States v. Payne, 644 F.3d 1111, 1112 (10th Cir.2011). Relief under § 2255 is not unavailable or inadequate merely because the defendant failed to avail himself of it when he had the chance. Cf. Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578, 589 (10th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). The district court concluded that Mr. Lester
recognizing that under prost access to  2241 through the savings clause turns solely on whether the remedy provided by  2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of mr abernathys detention holding that it is the inefficacy of the remedy not the personal inability to use it that is determinative under  2255 holding for  2241 purposes that  2255 is inadequate or ineffective only if the remedy itself is infirm not because of the movants failure to use it or to prevail under it holding that it is not recognizing that   2241 is not available under the inadequateorineffectiveremedy escape hatch of  2255 merely because the court of appeals refuses to certify a second or successive motion under the gatekeeping provisions of  2255