Former federal inmate Harry Katz appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We agree with the court that Katz may not raise in a coram nobis petition the same claims that he previously litigated in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 338, 112 S.Ct. 2514, 120 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992) (successive habeas petition raising identical grounds as prior petition must generally be dismissed); United States v. Camacho-Bordes, 94 F.3d 1168, 1173 (8th Cir. 1996) (coram nobis relief is substantially equivalent to habeas relief, and principles barring successive petitions apply); Azzone v. United States, 341 F.2d 417, 418-19 (8th Cir. 1965) (per curiam) (eoram nobis petitioner is not entitled to review of issues that were consid *680 ered and resolved either on direct appeal or in § 2255 motion): We also find that the district court did not err in denying the petition without a hearing or discovery. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.