1:10-cv-00361-CCE-LPA) SKY LEASE I, INCORPORATED v. Federal Express Corporation, f/k/a Caribbean Transportation Services, Incorporated

Filed: January 25, 2012
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1598
(1:10-cv-00361-CCE-LPA)
SKY LEASE I, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, f/k/a Caribbean Transportation
Services, Incorporated,
Defendant - Appellee.
O R D E R
The Court amends its opinion filed January 5, 2012, as
follows:
On the cover sheet, district court information section --
the district judge's middle name "Caldwell" is deleted and is
replaced by middle initial "C."
For the Court – By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk

-- 1 of 4 --

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1598
SKY LEASE I, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, f/k/a Caribbean Transportation
Services, Incorporated,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00361-CCE-LPA)
Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: January 5, 2012
Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Nathan Duggins, III, Martha R. Sacrinty, TUGGLE DUGGINS &
MESCHAN, P.A., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Neale
T. Johnson, L. Cooper Harrell, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD, LLP,
Greensboro, North Carolina; Thomas W. Southerland, III, FEDERAL
EXPRESS CORPORATION, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Sky Lease I, Incorporated (“Sky Lease”) appeals the
district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Federal
Express Corporation (“FedEx”) in Sky Lease’s action for breach
of contract. We review a district court’s grant of summary
judgment de novo, drawing reasonable inferences in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party. PBM Prods., LLC v. Mead
Johnson & Co., 639 F.3d 111, 119 (4th Cir. 2011). Summary
judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
Under North Carolina law, “a contract that is plain
and unambiguous on its face will be interpreted by the court as
a matter of law.”* Schenkel & Schultz, Inc. v. Hermon F. Fox &
Associates, 658 S.E.2d 918, 921 (N.C. 2008). “An ambiguity
exists in a contract when either the meaning of the words or the
effect of provisions is uncertain or capable of several
reasonable interpretations.” Register v. White, 599 S.E.2d 549,
553 (N.C. 2004). Our review of the record leads us to conclude
that the contract provision in question is unambiguous, and
allowed FedEx to terminate the contract with the required
* The parties do not dispute that North Carolina law
applies.

-- 3 of 4 --

3
notice, and did not require payment for any unused aircraft
hours if, as here, the contract was so terminated.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --