With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 416, 429, 116 S.Ct. 1460, 134 L.Ed.2d 613 (1996); Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir.2000). The district court denied Ruiz leave to proceed IFP, and Ruiz appeals that decision. Ruiz contends that the denial of his § 1651(a) petition was error. He urges that such a petition is the only remedy available to him to invalidate his unjust 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction, presumably because any alternative remedy he would have would have been untimely or otherwise procedurally precluded. Specifically, Ruiz argues that he may seek a writ of audita querela and seek general “extraordinary relief’ through the All Writs Act despite the general availability of § 2255 relief for federal prisoners. See, e.g., United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 509-13, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Miller, 599 F.3d 484, 487-88

A: holding that despite  2255 the writ of coram nobis is available to federal defendants after they are released from custody to correct fundamentally unjust federal sentences
B: holding that coram nobis may not issue when alternative remedies such as habeas corpus are available
C: holding that federal court may not issue writ of coram nobis for state prisoner
D: recognizing the all writs act gives federal courts authority to issue writs of coram nobis to correct fundamental errors in criminal proceedings where the person is no longer in custody
A.