USCA4 Appeal: 24-6737 Doc: 5 Filed: 10/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6737

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. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00290-TDS-1; 1:22-cv- 00194-TDS-JEP)

Submitted: October 10, 2024 Decided: October 16, 2024

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 24-6737 Doc: 5 Filed: 10/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Norman Alan Kerr seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and construing his “Petition for a Claim of Actual

Innocence of § 924(e) and § 922(g)(1) Pursuant to Recent SCT Ruling held in ‘Wooden v

U.S.’ citing procedure Fed. Rule Crim P 51(b) held in Holquin-Hernandez v. U.S.” and his

motion seeking to file a petition for a writ of audita querela as

motions

and dismissing them as successive and unauthorized. ∗ The order is not appealable unless

a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See

(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2). When, as here, the district

court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of

the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler,

(2012) (citing

Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Kerr has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

∗ The district court also determined in its order that Kerr’s motion for reconsideration was properly denied. On appeal, Kerr does not challenge that ruling.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6737 Doc: 5 Filed: 10/16/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3