Dixie-Net Communications, Inc v. Bellsouth Telecom, No. 12-60685 (5th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-60685 Document: 00512182505 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED March 21, 2013 No. 12-60685 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk DIXIE-NET COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED, doing business as AT&T Mississippi; MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; BRANDON PRESLEY, in his official capacity as Commissioner; LEONARD BENTZ, in his official capacity as Commissioner; LYNN POSEY, in his official capacity as Commissioner, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:10-CV-84 Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* This is an appeal from the district court s judgment affirming the Mississippi Public Service Commission s ruling with respect to an interconnection agreement (ICA) between Appellant Dixie-Net Communications, * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 12-60685 Document: 00512182505 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2013 No. 12-60685 Inc. and Appellee BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a AT&T Mississippi. Appellant first argues that the Commission s interpretation of this ICA should be subject to a de novo standard of review. It is binding law in this circuit that a federal court reviews a state utility commission s interpretation of an ICA under an arbitrary and capricious standard. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm n of Tex., 208 F.3d 475, 482 (5th Cir. 2000); see also Budget Prepay, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 605 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2010). We decline Appellant s request for us to overrule that precedent, which at any rate we cannot do. Lowrey v. Tex. A&M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1997) ( [O]ne panel of this court cannot overrule the decision of another panel; such panel decisions may be overruled only by a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court or by the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc. ). As to the district court s finding that the Commission s ruling was not arbitrary and capricious, we agree with the court s thorough and well-reasoned opinion. AFFIRMED. 2
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.
