UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 D. Pahutski seeks to appeal the district
court’s April 21, 2014 order denying seven 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. Although a district court’s denial of such a request is
an 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. See Incumaa v.
2
Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 285-86 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth the
principles of appellate mootness). We therefore dismiss the
remainder of this appeal as moot. 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