Tarun Kumar Vyas v. Joseph Walters

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 26-6242
TARUN KUMAR VYAS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH WALTERS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Elizabeth K. Dillon, Chief District Judge. (7:25-cv-00002-EKD-CKM)
Submitted: April 28, 2026 Decided: May 1, 2026
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tarun Kumar Vyas, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Tarun Kumar Vyas seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting his motions to
supplement and amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, denying his motions for bail, and
denying without prejudice various other motions he filed relating to his § 2254 petition.
Preliminarily, we grant Vyas’s motions to amend, supplement, and exceed length
limitations for the informal brief. We deny all Vyas’s other pending motions, including
his motions to adopt the record and for assignment of counsel.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen
v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The portion of the district
court’s order denying Vyas’s motions for bail is immediately appealable under the
collateral order doctrine. See, e.g., Pagan v. United States, 353 F.3d 1343, 1345-46,
1345 n.4 (11th Cir. 2003) (adopting rule and collecting cases). 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); see also Pagan, 353 F.3d at 1346; Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 685-
86 (4th Cir. 2004) (recognizing that, in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceedings, an immediately
appealable collateral order is considered a final order for purposes of certificate of
appealability requirement).
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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 as to that portion of the district court’s order. The remainder of the order Vyas seeks
to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we dismiss the remainder of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
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 --