United States v. Michael Pahutski ( 2022 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7574
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, Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00211-MR-1)
Submitted: March 29, 2022 Decided: April 1, 2022
Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael D. Pahutski, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael D. Pahutski appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s order
granting or denying a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States
v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (providing standard of review), cert. denied, 142 S.
Ct. 383 (2021).
Upon review of the record, we discern no such abuse of discretion. Specifically, the
district court denied Pahutski’s motion after assuming, in the alternative, that Pahutski
demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons that warranted a sentence reduction,
discussing the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explaining its
reasons for the denial decision. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir.
2021) (rejecting “the categorical rule” that, in deciding a compassionate release motion,
“district courts must not only consider the parties’ arguments . . . but must also invariably
acknowledge and address each of the defendant’s arguments on the record”). Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Pahutksi, 3:07-cr-00211-MR-1
(W.D.N.C. Oct. 29, 2021). 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
2