Tarun Vyas v. Bryan Hutcheson
Tarun Vyas v. Bryan Hutcheson
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 25-6372 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/18/2025 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6372
TARUN KUMAR VYAS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SHERIFF BRYAN HUTCHESON, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:23-cv-00102-JPJ-PMS)
Submitted: August 1, 2025 Decided: August 18, 2025
Before KING and BERNER, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 25-6372 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/18/2025 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM: Tarun Kumar Vyas, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which he filed when he was a pretrial detainee. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); see Stanko v. Stirling, 109 F.4th 681, 700 (4th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, No. 24-6420, 2025 WL 1287095 (U.S. May 5, 2025). 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).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Vyas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Vyas’s motion for assignment of counsel, 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
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.