Ramirez’s presence at the sentencing proceeding— explicitly spells out the sentence, count by count, that was imposed. On this record, there is no basis for concluding that Ramirez’s substantial rights have been violated in a manner that entitles him to the issuance of an extraordinary writ. See United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 130 S.Ct. 2159, 2164, 176 L.Ed.2d 1012 (2010). We have considered all of Ramirez’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 1 . Ramirez has abandoned his pursuit of the writ of audita querela, recognizing that such a writ is unavailable in his situation. See United States v. Richter, 510 F.3d 103, 104 (2d Cir.2007). 2 . See, e.g., Denedo, 556 U.S. at 911, 129 S.Ct. 2213 (<HOLDING>); Porcelli, 404 F.3d at 158 (noting that coram
holding same for writ of error coram nobis recognizing common law rule that the proceedings upon an application for a writ of error coram nobis were like proceedings in habeas corpus regarded as civil in character holding that coram nobis may not issue when alternative remedies such as habeas corpus are available holding that federal court may not issue writ of coram nobis for state prisoner holding that in the absence of a valid excuse for delay a coram nobis petition is subject to denial