
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Franklin PUTNAM, also known as Tony Martinez, also known as Bobby Spiers, also known as Bob Watson, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-60165 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed April 18, 2017
    Gaines H. Cleveland, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jay Tresca Golden, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Mississippi, Gulfport, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    James Franklin Putnam, Pro Se
    Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

James Franklin Putnam appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Putnam has completed his term of imprisonment but is still serving the five-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty plea conviction of hostage taking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1203.

At all times, this court must be assured of its jurisdiction and the district court’s jurisdiction. United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000). Because Putnam is still subject to an unexpired term of supervised release, he is “in custody” and ineligible for coram nobis relief. See United States v. Scruggs, 691 F.3d 660, 662 n.1 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Esogbue, 357 F.3d 532, 534 (5th Cir. 2004). Because Putnam is challenging his federal conviction, the district court should have construed his petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court, however, lacked jurisdiction to do so because Putnam previously filed a § 2255 motion, and this court did not authorize the filing of a successive § 2255 motion. See Hooker v. Sivley, 187 F.3d 680, 681-82 (5th Cir. 1999); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED on the alternative ground that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Putnam’s petition. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). All pending motions are DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     