pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. Hummasti may not challenge his sentence pursuant to a petition for a writ of error coram nobis because he is still in federal custody. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 761 (9th Cir.) (deciding that a writ of coram nobis was unavailable to a petitioner on supervised release, because he was still in “custody” and could seek relief pursuant to a § 2255 motion), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 544, 154 L.Ed.2d 431 (2002). Further, because Hummasti has already attacked his conviction pursuant to a § 2255 motion, he “may not resort to co-ram nobis merely because he has failed to meet the AEDPA’s gatekeeping requirements.” Matus-Leva, 287 F.3d at 761; see Garcia v. Bunnell, 33 F.3d 1193, 1195 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not
holding this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds holding that an appellate court may affirm a grant of summary judgment on any ground appearing in the record even if the circuit court did not rely on it holding we may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even those not relied upon by the district court recognizing that this court may affirm on any ground supported by the record even if it differs from the reasoning of the district court recognizing this court may affirm for any reason supported by the record