Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Pearlie Lee Ingram appeals the district court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of error coram nobis. We affirm.

A writ of error coram nobis can be used to vacate a conviction when a fundamental error resulted in conviction and no other means of relief is available. United States *278 v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 911, 129 S.Ct. 2213, 173 L.Ed.2d 1235 (2009); United States v. Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir. 2012). But see Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416, 429, 116 S.Ct. 1460, 134 L.Ed.2d 613 (1996) (“[I]t is difficult to conceive of a situation in a federal criminal case today where a writ of coram nobis would be necessary or appropriate.” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)). We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to deny coram nobis relief. Bereano v. United States, 706 F.3d 568, 575 (4th Cir. 2013).

Applying these standards, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Ingram’s petition for writ of coram nobis. Accordingly, we deny Ingram’s motions to consider new evidence and for oral argument and affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.