BLD-279                                                       NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                      No. 12-2394
                                      ___________

                            UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                            v.

                               WALTER HIMMELREICH,

                                        Appellant
                      ____________________________________

                    On Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
                       (D.C. Criminal No. 1:05-cr-00214-001)
                       District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane
                     ____________________________________

                        Submitted for Possible Summary Action
                   Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                   September 7, 2012

              Before: SCIRICA, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

                           (Opinion filed September 21, 2012)
                                       _________

                                       OPINION
                                       _________

PER CURIAM

      Pro se appellant Walter Himmelreich is a federal prisoner. Following his 2006

guilty plea to a count of producing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(b),
we affirmed his conviction and sentence. See United States v. Himmelreich, 265 F.

App’x 100 (3d Cir. 2008). A collateral attack was unsuccessful. See United States v.

Himmelreich, C.A. No. 10-4720 (order denying certificate of appealability entered July

21, 2011).

       In March 2012, Himmelreich wrote to the District Court to request disclosure of a

variety of documents, including: grand jury transcripts, FBI case notes, and the presiding

District Judge’s case file notes. Himmelreich explained that he was preparing a “writ of

error coram nobis/vobis,” which was to be based on “newly discovered impeachment

evidence” that the “lead investigator in this case[] ha[d] a history of tampering with

evidence.” The District Court denied the motion and denied Himmelreich’s request for

reconsideration. He timely appealed.

       We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review for an abuse of

discretion. Cf. United States v. Miramontez, 

, 59 (5th Cir. 1993). We detect

none. Himmelreich has failed to show the presence of an ongoing proceeding or a

particularized need for the materials, especially those that are unreleased or otherwise

privileged. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(E); Miramontez, 995 F.2d at 59. His

reconsideration motion provided no basis for disturbing the District Court’s judgment. 1


1
  The Seventh Circuit has cautioned that these post-trial requests can implicate the
jurisdiction of the District Court, as they may be impermissible second or successive
collateral attacks. See United States v. Scott, 

, 816–17 (7th Cir. 2005).
Because Himmelreich reveals that he intends to submit his petition in the future—he “is
preparing” a coram nobis application that he “will” file—we will not find that the District
Court lacked jurisdiction on this ground. See id.
                                             2
See Long v. Atl. City Police Dep’t, 

, 446 (3d Cir. 2012). To the extent that

he wishes to prepare a writ of error coram nobis, he is cautioned that such a writ cannot

be used to attack his conviction while he is still “in custody.” See Mendoza v. United

States, No. 11-3958, ___ F.3d ___, 

, at *4–5 (3d Cir. N.J.

June 28, 2012). He may not pursue coram nobis when other remedies, such as § 2255,

remain available. United States v. Denedo, 

, 911 (2009). As we explained

in our order denying a certificate of appealability, he must obtain our permission if he

wishes to file a second or successive collateral attack on his conviction or sentence; an

inability to meet that standard does not render § 2255 relief “unavailable” for the

purposes of coram nobis. United States v. Rhines, 

, 72 (3d Cir. 2011) (per

curiam). 2

       There being no substantial question presented by this appeal, we will summarily

affirm the order of the District Court. Id.; see also L.A.R. 27.4; IOP 10.6.




2
  Himmelreich’s submissions contain the faint air of sovereign-citizen argumentation.
See Mot. for Copies 1–2, ECF No. 173 (referring to the District Court as an “Article I
Court”; referencing the “Incorporated United States of America”). To continue down
that path would be unrewarding. See United States v. Benabe, 

, 767 (7th
Cir. 2011).
                                             3