
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Scott PINKERTON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-8072
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    FILED October 6, 2016
    James C. Anderson, Esq., David A. Ku-bichek, Esq., Office of the United States Attorney, District of Wyoming, Cheyenne, WY, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    John Scott Pinkerton, Pro Se
    Before GORSUCH, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Carolyn B. McHugh, Circuit Judge

John Scott Pinkerton, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for relief pursuant to a writ of coram nobis. However, coram nobis relief is unavailable to prisoners currently in custody. See United States v. Torres, 282 F.3d 1241, 1245 (10th Cir. 2002) (“[A] prisoner may not challenge a sentence or conviction for which he is currently in custody through a writ of coram nobis.”). Because Mr. Pinkerton is challenging the conviction for which he is currently in custody, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Mr. Pinkerton’s motion.

We DENY Mr. Pinkerton’s motion for default judgment based on the government’s failure to file a response brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 31(c) (failing to file appel-lee brief results in exclusion from oral argument); Boulware v. Baldwin, 545 Fed.Appx. 725, 731 (10th Cir. 2013) (unpublished) (“Electing not to file an appellee’s brief waives the right to participate in oral argument, Fed. R. App. P. 31(c), it does not concede the result of the appeal.”). 
      
       After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
     
      
      . Because Mr. Pinkerton is proceeding pro se, we construe his filings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007). "[T]his rule of liberal construction stops, however, at the point at which we begin to serve as his advocate.” United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir. 2009).
     