U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2026

Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 v. United States Patent & Trademark Office

Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 v. United States Patent & Trademark Office
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided January 28, 2026
Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 v. United States Patent & Trademark Office

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2219 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/28/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-2219

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), in Greenbelt Maryland; AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS, (AIP); KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, in Cape Canaveral, Florida; NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, (NSF) Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Jasmine Hyejung Yoon, District Judge. (5:25-cv-00091-JHY-JCH)

Submitted: January 22, 2026 Decided: January 28, 2026

Before AGEE, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2219 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/28/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Ronald Satish Emrit (who also identifies himself as Presidential Candidate Number P60005535) appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s determination that the complaint failed to present a plausible claim for relief. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Presidential Candidate No. P60005535 v. USPTO, No. 5:25-cv-00091-JHY-JCH (W.D. Va. Sep. 11, 2025). 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.

AFFIRMED

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.