Tarun Kumar Vyas v. Chadwick Dotson; Sheriff Bryan Hutcheson; Jason S. Miyares

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6866
TARUN KUMAR VYAS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHADWICK DOTSON; SHERIFF BRYAN HUTCHESON; JASON S.
MIYARES,
Respondents – Appellees.
No. 24-6873
TARUN KUMAR VYAS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SHERIFF BRYAN HUTCHESON; CHADWICK DOTSON; JASON S.
MIYARES,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Elizabeth K. Dillon, Chief District Judge. (7:23-cv-00570-EKD-JCH; 7:22-cv-
00744-EKD-JCH)

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Submitted: March 11, 2025 Decided: March 14, 2025
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
No. 24-6866, dismissed; No. 24-6873, affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tarun Kumar Vyas, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Tarun Kumar Vyas seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 petition and the court’s order denying Vyas’s motions to reconsider and to
seal. Preliminarily, we grant Vyas’s motion for consideration of his entire informal brief.
The portions of the district court’s orders denying Vyas’s § 2254 petition and denying
reconsideration are 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 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.
The denial of Vyas’s motion to seal or redact is not subject to the requirement for a
certificate of appealability. Cf. Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009). We have
reviewed the record and discern no reversible error as to the denial of that motion.
Accordingly, we deny Vyas’s remaining pending motions, deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal in No. 24-6866, and affirm the denial of Vyas’s motion
to seal in No. 24-6873.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
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.
No. 24-6866, DISMISSED
No. 24-6873, AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --