Case ID: f-appx_621/html/0199-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael D. PAHUTSKI, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-6818.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 20, 2015.
    Decided: Oct. 22, 2015.
    Michael D. Pahutski, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and • THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 appeala-bility 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 habeas petition.” 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir.2015). 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. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either:

(1) néwly 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) 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). Pahutski’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade'-quately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.