PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NUMBER P60005535, a/k/a Ronald Satish Emrit v. Maria Cherniavska, of Warsaw, Poland (Future First Lady of United States by 2028 in…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 26-1200
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.
MARIA CHERNIAVSKA, of Warsaw, Poland (Future First Lady of United States
by 2028 in a parallel Universe); VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, President of
Ukraine; ESTATE OF ALEXEI NAVALNY; DARYA IGNATEVA, of Kyiv,
Ukraine; KATERYNA OLOKOBA, of Kherson, Ukraine; ERIN BURNETT,
Outfront of Cable News Network (CNN); INTERNATIONAL COURT OF
JUSTICE OF HAGUE, Netherlands, United Nations (UN); WORLD BANK;
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, IMF; COUNCIL ON FOREIGN
RELATIONS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Harrisonburg. Elizabeth K. Dillon, Chief District Judge. (5:26-cv-00002-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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Ronald Satish Emrit (who also identifies himself as Presidential Candidate Number
P60005535) filed a notice of appeal in his civil case a month 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.

-- 3 of 3 --