Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael D. PAHUTSKI, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-22
Citations: 621 F. App'x 199
Docket Number: No. 15-6818
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael D. PAHUTSKI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and • THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 621
Pages: 199–200

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.