PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NUMBER P60005535, a/k/a Ronald Satish Emrit v. United States Patent & Trademark Office, Uspto

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 26-1204
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NUMBER P60005535, a/k/a Ronald Satish Emrit;
PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE/POLITICAL ACTION
COMMITTEE/SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND (SSF) NUMBER C00569897,
d/b/a United Emrits of America,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE, USPTO; UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; NASA GODDARD SPACE
FLIGHT CENTER, GSFC; KENNEDY SPACE CENTER; AMERICAN
INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS, AIP; NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Patricia Tolliver Giles, District Judge. (1:25-cv-01786-PTG-IDD)
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 four months after his
case was transferred to the Eastern District of Virgina from the Western District of
Tennessee and before the district court had entered any other orders. To the extent that
Emrit seeks to appeal the transfer order, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review a
transfer order from a district court in another circuit. See Brock v. Entre Comput. Ctrs.,
Inc., 933 F.2d 1253, 1257 (4th Cir. 1991) (“[W]e have no jurisdiction to review a decision
to transfer venue rendered by a district court in another circuit.”). Moreover, Emrit filed
his notice of appeal outside the applicable 60-day appeal period. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(1)(B). And finally, Emrit’s appeal was not otherwise taken from a final order, 28
U.S.C. § 1291, or another appealable interlocutory or collateral order, 28 U.S.C. § 1292;
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).
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 --