Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 v. Maria Cherniavska

USCA4 Appeal: 26-1200 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 26-1200 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 26-1200 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 3 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.