USCA4 Appeal: 24-1516 Doc: 26 Filed: 12/09/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1516

In re: NORMAN ALAN KERR, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. (1:09-cr-00290-TDS-1; 1:22-cv-00194-TDS- JEP)

Submitted: December 5, 2024 Decided: December 9, 2024

Before GREGORY and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norman Alan Kerr, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1516 Doc: 26 Filed: 12/09/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Norman Alan Kerr petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order from this court reversing his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He also seeks leave to amend his petition. We grant that motion and have considered the arguments in the motion to amend in our review. We conclude that Kerr is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (cleaned up). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

The relief sought by Kerr is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED