US v. Michael Pahutski, No. 15-6818 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6818 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL D. PAHUTSKI, Defendant -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: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 22, 2015 Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael D. Pahutski, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael D. Pahutski appeals the district court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. As we recently held in United States v. McRae, a certificate of appealability is not required in order for this court to address the district court’s jurisdictional categorization of a “Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015). habeas petition.” Our review of the record confirms that Pahutski sought successive § 2255 relief, without authorization from this court, and we therefore hold that the district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the subject motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (2012). Thus, we affirm the district court’s order. Additionally, we construe Pahutski’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. (4th Cir. 2003). United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or 2 (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). these criteria. Pahutski’s claims do not satisfy either of Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 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. AFFIRMED 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.
