US v. Michael Pahutski, No. 14-6710 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6710 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL D. PAHUTSKI, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00211-MR-1; 3:12-cv-00308-MR) Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 30, 2014 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael D. Pahutski, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Melissa Louise Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael court s April 21, D. Pahutski 2014 order seeks to denying appeal seven the district motions Pahutski filed while his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion was pending. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss this appeal. 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 46 (1949). In the underlying order, the district court rejected Pahutski s motions to withdraw his guilty plea, for sanctions, to strike the Government s response to his § 2255 motion, and for an expedited ruling on his § 2255 motion. As to these rulings, the appealed-from order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction. The district court also rejected Pahutski s three motions for release or bail pending adjudication of his § 2255 motion. an Although a district court s denial of such a request is appealable collateral order, see, e.g., Pagan v. United States, 353 F.3d 1343, 1345-46 & n.4 (11th Cir. 2003) (adopting rule and collecting cases), in light of the district court s May 28, 2014 order denying the § 2255 motion, Pahutski s appeal of this aspect of the court s order is now moot. 2 See Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 285-86 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth the principles of appellate mootness). remainder of this appeal as moot. We therefore dismiss the 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 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
