Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06198/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06198-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Norman Alan Kerr
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6198

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

NORMAN ALAN KERR, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00290-NCT-1; 1:14-cv-1094) 

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 21, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Norman Alan Kerr, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; 

Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 15-6198 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Norman Alan Kerr seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s 

order denying his motion seeking to disqualify the United States 

Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina and the 

district court judge who presided over his trial and sentencing 

from participating in the adjudication of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012) motion. 

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 

545-47 (1949). The order Kerr seeks to appeal is neither a 

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 

Accordingly, we deny Kerr’s motion for a transcript at 

government expense and dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. 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. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6198 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 2