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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. See

(c)(1)(A). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.”

(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,

(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,

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

(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