MEMORANDUM **
Federal prisoner Jose Lucas Zamora appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Zamora alleges that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights at sentencing when it applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 after his jury trial conviction for various drug offenses. We review a district court’s decision to deny coram nobis relief de novo. See Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir.2002). The district *600court properly denied the petition. Because Zamora is still in custody for this conviction, the extraordinary remedy of co-ram nobis is unavailable. See id. at 761 (when more usual remedy of habeas petition is available, remedy of coram nobis is not, even when claims are time-barred by AEDPA).
Furthermore, the Sixth Amendment'is not violated when a sentencing court finds facts while exercising its discretion to impose a sentence within the statutorily prescribed range. See United States v. Vallejos, 742 F.3d 902, 906 (9th Cir.2014) (neither Alleyne v. United States, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), nor Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is implicated when a judge imposes a sentencing enhancement that does not affect the statutory sentencing range).
AFFIRMED.