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

Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 v. Quantico

Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 v. Quantico
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided June 24, 2026
Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 v. Quantico

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 26-1201 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 26-1201 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 2 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.

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