Tarun Kumar Vyas v. Sheriff Bryan Hutcheson; Harold W. Clarke; Jason S. Miyares

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6303
TARUN KUMAR VYAS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SHERIFF BRYAN HUTCHESON; HAROLD W. CLARKE; JASON S.
MIYARES,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Elizabeth K. Dillon, Chief District Judge. (7:22-cv-00744-EKD-JCH)
Submitted: August 22, 2024 Decided: August 27, 2024
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tarun Kumar Vyas, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Tarun Kumar Vyas seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of
appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural
grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is
debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional
right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Vyas has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We grant Vyas’ motion to file a supplemental informal brief and deny the
remaining pending motions. 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

-- 2 of 2 --