With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding we may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even those not relied upon by the district court
B: 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
C: holding this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds
D: recognizing that this court may affirm on any ground supported by the record even if it differs from the reasoning of the district court
D.