USCA4 Appeal: 24-6303 Doc: 20 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6303 Doc: 20 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 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