Hardik Sureschchandra Patel v. the Attorney General of the State of Virginia

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6153
HARDIK SURESCHCHANDRA PATEL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA; VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; VIRGINIA PROBATION AND PAROLE
FREDERICKSBURG - DISTRICT 21,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:24-cv-00426-RBS-RJK)
Submitted: June 25, 2026 Decided: July 14, 2026
Before GREGORY, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hardik Sureschchandra Patel, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Hardik Sureschchandra Patel seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as
procedurally defaulted. 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 Patel has not made
the requisite showing. The district court found that procedural default was not excused
because Patel did not make a claim of actual innocence. Although that procedural finding
is debatable, an alternative basis to deny § 2254 relief exists—namely, the petition does
not provide any new evidence of Patel’s actual innocence. See McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569
U.S. 383, 386, 394-95 (2013) (discussing actual innocence gateway to excuse procedural
default); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 372 n.5 (4th Cir. 2004) (suggesting that
procedural ground not employed by district court may render appeal futile), abrogated on
other grounds by United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 of 3 --