Court Opinion

ID: 9375204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-25 21:00:19.230386+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.791003
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7420      Doc: 10         Filed: 02/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7420

        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. Joi Elizabeth Peake, Magistrate Judge.                (1:09-cr-00290-NCT-1;
        1:22-cv-00194-NCT-JEP)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 24, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Norman Alan Kerr, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7420      Doc: 10         Filed: 02/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Norman Alan Kerr seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order granting his motions

        for leave to file a legal memorandum and for a docket sheet, denying as unnecessary his

        motion for a docket sheet and transfer of records, and directing the Government to respond

        to his motion challenging his sentence. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

        orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292;

        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 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

                                                     2