Lewis v. Federal Communication Commission, No. 7:2018cv00113 - Document 19 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 05/03/2018. (aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
/ = k% OFFI U.S. lr f COUM ' 2 CE ti ' s. ATROANOKE, VA FI LED Mt I THE UNI N TED STATES DI STRI COURT CT FOR THE W ESTERN DI STRI OF VI NI CT RGI A 21 23 aJ xU R O A N O K E D I SI W ON JA CK E.LEW I JR . S, , Pl ntf , ai if By: x M EM O M N DU M O PI I N N O FEDEM L COM M UNI CATI ON COM M I ON, SSI D ef endant . c ! . Ci lA cton N o.7: vvi i 18-c 00113 V. L 'c E H on.M i chaelF.U rbanski C hi fU ni e St e Di t c Judge e t d at s s ri t J c E.Le s J . aVigi ai a e c ak wi, r, r ni nm t , omm e edt sa ton pur ua t 42 U. C. nc hi c i s nt o S. j1 8 a an theFe ea Co niain Co sin((CC' .Th c mpan r a s 9 3 g is t d rl mmu c to s mmiso t ' e o lit e d : F ) In s i t eFCC f rn td ig i fid cay rs o sblt f ralwig m ung h o o on t ll u ir e p n i ii o lo n s y ilg lp r t be s o o t itr e. Ilg lme n ilg l gl y u l a on o e h wn n he n en t le a a s le a . lf o alow ilgala tonsyou a e a a es o yt a c i Thepan a s f rng l le ci r n cc s r o rme. i nd ufe i t i e a we stsh v c us d me gn )ohesae i au a l. .. I he l g l b i a e a e l e a d t r r mme s r be . alo c r t m wih coluso wih ne pr de st alow ilga c e . s ha ge he t l i n t t ovi r o l le l ont nt Il ga m e nsil al W he agove n e a nc doe note oy t l ws le l a leg . n r m nt ge y s nf ce he a te y aer s o il f rt r s t. h g j r ep nsb e o he euls Thi a ton i dimis d a fi ousand ma ii us ç lhough s s ci s s s e s rvol lc o . W t ome c s st tde e v a e ha s r e i d aeds sa wil o awa sft riultdsa d r s t tan djlit a ma ytme mme it imisl ln t l y ia t ae tn a d ,he ri e t s c n n i s c r s et r e h ough a s r en oft chni aly r ogni d a l ga i t di co r a w a r n l s ac i ' ce e c l ec ze le tons o s ve r a t e s ton. ' S e c rv Rh d s 6 6F. u p. 8 4 2 ( D. C., f ,8 6F.d 1 61( t Ci.1 8 ) n n e . o e , 5 S p 45 , 6 E. N. ) afd 2 2 0 4h r 9 7 . ç-hecli ...a s red c d be o t twa lgaly r ogni d,butfom t f c o t t t- am l s e t oul ne ha s e l ec ze r he a e f ha c mpan ,heeg snod u t h t h p an ifE sprs ni gt ej dcaywi n t igmo e o lit t r i j o b t a t e litf i e e tn h u iir t ohn r q h t na o p ru iyt wa t s metme' I .t-j j d cay s o l n twi p e e e t teo r ha n p o tn t o se o i . d tfhe u iir , h ud o t r c d n,i u ' l h Lewis v. Federal Communication Commission Doc. 19 own ha t t e e t twemakeour evesuna et ke p pr ltga i i t f de a nds o he xt nt ha sl bl o e o : ii ton n he e r l c t f om be om i a f r ofr c e ton f pr s i a e ' 1 a 463. our s r c ng o m e r a i or i on nm t s. d. t ' Thec t our indst tt sa ton wa c ha hi c i s omm e ed f rt pu pos ofha a s e a notf nc o he r e r s m nt nd or t pu pos ofvi c tng a cog z bl r g w ih an a gua eba i i 1 w orf c . See e. , he z e ndi a i ni g e i ht t r bl s s n a at , c. Dockets.Justia.com Netk v. il ms 4 0U. 31 , 2 ( 9 9 ; e c r s p aa 46 -3.Alh u htec ut iz e W li , 9 S. 9 3 8 1 8 ) Sp n e , u r t 1 6 t o g h o r a grnt Pli ifla t pr e dL f mana rs t c t riist ta a aloft s a s antf e ve o oc e q or upei,he our cetfe ha n ppe hi opi on a t a ompan ng or rwo d notbe i good f ih pur ua t 28 U. C. ni nd he cc yi de ul n at s nt o S. j1 5 a () S eS u lc v. rt 3 F. p' 25 , 8( t Ci. 01 )(ç'ed src 91 ()3 . e p ro k Hu s, 91 Ap x 7 25 4h r 2 0 Gf itit -h co tsc ri to t t t a a i t ke i ba f ih co r si t a e ofs ur' e tûcai n ha he ppe l s a n n d a t ntol n he bs nce ome s howi ng t tt di ti tc tis fm ade uch a de e na i ha he s r c our t el t nni tpn J: ibdfi .. q a at' ! h) dyo A r 2 1. a f 4 08 1 . . ENTER:T i $ C hs *rz r ru j. . , . . . ,. ' . .. ..: . t . t .! .' , ' ' .* I ' . ' . ' Chi fUnie t t Diti tJ e td k es src udge a 2 , J ). '
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
