Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
26-1201•PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NUMBER P60005535, a/k/a Ronald Satish Emrit v. QUANTICO, Virginia
26-1201Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit24.06.2026
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 26-1201
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NUMBER P60005535, a/k/a Ronald Satish Emrit;
PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE/POLITICAL ACTION
COMMITTEE/SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND (SSF) NUMBER C00569897,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
QUANTICO, Virginia; LANGLEY, Virginia; FBI FORENSIC LABORATORY, at
Quantico; CIA HEADQUARTERS, at Langley; FBI HEADQUARTERS, at 935
Pennsylvania Avenue,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Harrisonburg. Elizabeth K. Dillon, Chief District Judge. (5:25-cv-00140-EKD-JCH)
Submitted: June 18, 2026 Decided: June 24, 2026
Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Satish Emrit (who also identifies himself as Presidential Candidate Number
P60005535) filed a notice of appeal in his civil case approximately two months after filing
his complaint and before the district court had entered any orders. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Emrit does not seek to appeal either a final order or
an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction.* 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
* Because Emrit’s notice of appeal cannot supply jurisdiction to review the district
court’s dismissal order entered after he filed his notice of appeal, Emrit must file another
notice of appeal if he wishes to appeal that order.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.