Casas-Castrillon

MEMORANDUM **

Luis Felipe Casas-Castrillon appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Casas-Castrillon argues that the district court 1) failed to construe his habeas petition as a petition for writ of error coram nobis, and 2) improperly found he did not meet the Gideon v. Wainwright exception to the custody requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a). 1 We affirm.

*497 We review de novo a district court’s denial of a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , or for writ of error coram nobis. See Benitez v. Garcia, 495 F.3d 640, 643 (9th Cir.2007) (habeas); United States v. Kwan, 407 F.3d 1005, 1011 (9th Cir.2005) (coram nobis). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record even if it differs from the rationale of the district court. See Buckley v. Terhune, 441 F.3d 688, 694 (9th Cir.2006).

Casas-Castrillon contends that the district court erred by not construing, sua sponte, his § 2254 petition as a petition for writ of error coram nobis. As Casas-Castrillon acknowledges, he raises this issue for the first time on appeal. This alone bars his claim. Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair Corp., 953 F.2d 510, 515 (9th Cir.1992) (“As a general rule, an appellate court…