Tarun Vyas v. Bryan Hutcheson

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6873 Doc: 54 Filed: 03/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6866 TARUN KUMAR VYAS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHADWICK DOTSON; SHERIFF BRYAN HUTCHESON; JASON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) USCA4 Appeal: 24-6873 Doc: 54 Filed: 03/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 4 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 No. 24-6866, dismissed; No. 24-6873, affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6873 Doc: 54 Filed: 03/14/2025 Pg: 3 of 4 PER CURIAM: Tarun Kumar Vyas seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying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 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6873 Doc: 54 Filed: 03/14/2025 Pg: 4 of 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