US v. Michael Pahutski

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 3:07-cr-00211-MR-1,3:12-cv-00308-MR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999461924]. Mailed to: Michael Pahutski. [14-6890]

Appeal: 14-6890

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/24/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6890

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 21, 2014

Decided:

October 24, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6890

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/24/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael

D.

Pahutski

28

U.S.C.

district

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

§ 2255

appealability.

28

(2012)

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

his

the

motion.

a

on

appeal

order

issues

relief

to

court’s

judge

denying

seeks

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Pahutski has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 14-6890

Doc: 7

contentions

Filed: 10/24/2014

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3