# Uni ted S ta te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 20-1288 September Term, 2021 FCC-20-84 Filed O n: Decem ber 2 2, 2 021 Michael K arr, d/b /a W VUX- LD,

Pet itione r
v
. Fede ral Com mu nicatio ns Com mission an d United Sta tes o f

Am erica, Respo nde nts PETITIO N FOR REVIE W FROM A N ORDER OF THE FEDERA L COMMUN ICA TIONS COMMISSI ON BEFORE: Mill ett, W ilkins, an d Ja ckson, Circuit Jud ges J U D G M E N T T his pe tition for review of an orde r of

the Fed eral Com mu nicatio ns Com mission (“FC C”) was co nside red o n th e b riefs f iled b y the pa rties an d resp ond ent s’ app end ix

. See Fed . R. A pp. P. 34(a )(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34 (j). It is ORDERED A ND ADJUDGED tha t th e p etition for review be de nied . T he FCC prop erly de nied pe titione r’s request for an orde r com pelling sate llite tele v ision p rov iders to ca rry his low power televisi on statio n, W VUX- LD, o n th eir sate llite ne tworks. Beca use W VUX- LD is a low po wer te levi sion st ation , it is n ot a “television broa dcast statio n” covered b y

the m and ato ry

carriage ob lig ation s ap plicable to sate llite tele v ision providers und er Se ction 338 of the Com mu nicatio ns A ct. S ee 47 U.S.C. § 33 8(a)(1) (“Each sa tellite ca rrier prov iding . . . seco nda ry tran smission s to subscribe rs locate d w ithin t he local m arket of a t elevision broa dcaststat ion o f a p rimary transm ission m ade by that statio n sh all carry up on request t he signals of all te levi sion b road cast st ation s locate d within tha t loca l ma rket .

. . . ”); 47 U.S .C. § 325 (b)(7)(B) (telev ision b road cast statio n “do es n ot in clude a lo w-power or translat or te levi sion st ation ”). W here the statu tory language is clea r, the FCC and the cou rt “mu st give e f fect t o [Co ngress’] una mb iguously ex presse d int ent .” Northp oint T ech. , Lt d. v. FCC, 41 2 F.3 d 1 45, 15 1 (D.C. Cir. 2005 ) (citation and inte rnal quot ation m arks om itted ). Moreo ver, a lthou gh pet itione r asserts t hatW VUX- LD is a “q ualif ied lo w po wer sta tion” for pu rpose s of cab le television carriage ob lig ation s, see 47 U.S.C. § 5 34(a ), he fails to explain why tha t classif ication is relevant t o th e sa tellite t elevision con text.

# Uni ted S ta te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 20-1288 September Term, 2021 Finally , pe titione r’s concluso ry argume nts d o n ot sh ow that t he dif feren ces in ma nda tory carri age ob lig ation s for cab le an d sa tellite t elevision providers un der t he Com mu nicatio ns A ct violate h is rig ht t o e qual prot ection , cf . Ab delfatta h v. U.S. De p’t o f Hom elan d S ec., 787 F.3d 52 4, 5 39 (D.C. Cir. 2015 ) (rejecting const itution al claim w here litigants “failed to p ut forth any argume nt o r citation to aut hority supp orting the prop osition ” tha t th eir prote cted inte rests h ad bee n violated ), an d h is low po wer sta tion is treat ed the sam e a s all ot her lo w po wer sta tions w ith resp ect t o sa tellite ca rriag e. T he court ma y

no t en terta in pe titione r’s othe r const itution al argum ent s, which he failed to ra ise in t he und erly ing procee dings be fore t he FCC. See 47 U.S.C. § 4 05(a ) (precludin g judicial revi ew of “question s of

fact o r law

up on w hich t he Com mission , or designat ed aut hority w ithin t he Com mission , ha s be en af forde d n o o ppo rtunity to pass”); S ioux Valley Rural T elevision, In c. v. FCC, 349 F.3d 66 7, 6 76 n.5 (D.C. Cir. 200 3) (“[A]n incom plete prese nta tion of an issue doe s no t suf

fice to place a m atte r before t he Com mission such tha t it h as b een af forde d a fair op portu nity to pa ss on the argume nt.”) (citatio n a nd intern al quota tion ma rks om itted ). Pursua nt t o D.C. Circuit Ru le 36 , th is dispo sition will no t be pu blished . T he Clerk is directe d to w ithho ld issua nce of the m and ate he rein u ntil seven d ays af ter reso lution of an y tim ely petition for rehe aring or pe tition for rehe aring en ban c. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P. 4 1(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41

. Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT: Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Depu ty Cl erk

Page 2