Filed: Jun. 25, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1059 XO COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION; WORLD ACCESS COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1578-A) Submitted: June 11, 2003 Decided: June 25, 2003 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1059 XO COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION; WORLD ACCESS COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1578-A) Submitted: June 11, 2003 Decided: June 25, 2003 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges...
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1059
XO COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TERRA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION; WORLD
ACCESS COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-1578-A)
Submitted: June 11, 2003 Decided: June 25, 2003
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert J. Cunningham, Jr., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellants. John
A. Fraser, III, Reston, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Terra Telecommunications Corp. and its subsidiary, World
Access Communications Corp., appeal the district court’s order
granting a motion by XO Communications, Inc., to compel
arbitration.* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See XO Communications, Inc. v. Terra Telecomm.
Corp., No. CA-02-1578-A (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 25, 2002 & entered
Nov. 29, 2002). We deny Defendants’ motion requesting this court
to consider additional materials not before 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
*
We have jurisdiction over the appeal because “an order
compelling arbitration and dismissing the underlying claims is ‘a
final decision with respect to an arbitration,’ 9 U.S.C.[]
§ 16(a)(3) [(2000)], which is immediately appealable.” Murray v.
United Food & Commercial Workers,
289 F.3d 297, 305 (4th Cir.
2002).
2