In appeal No. 00-1201, Larry Thompson challenges the district court’s 1 denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, in which he attacked the restitution imposed in his 1988 convictions for mail and wire fraud. Thompson could have raised this issue on direct appeal, but did not; we conclude that having failed to do so, he cannot raise it through this petition. See Azzone v. United States, 341 F.2d 417, 419 (8th Cir. 1965) (per curiam) (“Coram nobis may not be used as a substitute for an appeal.”), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 943, 85 S.Ct. 1782, 14 L.Ed.2d 706 (1965) and 390 U.S. 970, 88 S.Ct. 1090, 19 L.Ed.2d 1180 (1968); Lipscomb v. United States, 273 F.2d 860, 865 (8th Cir.) (“It is well established that Writ of Error Coram Nobis ... will not he where there is another adequate remedy, as by motion for new trial or appeal.”), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 836, 81 S.Ct. 72, 5 L.Ed.2d 61 (1960).

In appeal No. 00-1204, Thompson challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for an extension of time to appeal the denial of his motion to supplement the record, and the court’s denial of his motion for an extension of time to file a reply to the government’s response to his writ peti *566 tion. Having carefully reviewed the record, we summarily affirm the court’s orders in these matters. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.