Hardik Patel v. Attorney General Of The State Of Virginia

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6153 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/14/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6153 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/14/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

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). USCA4 Appeal: 25-6153 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/14/2026 Pg: 3 of 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