F iled : January 25 , 20 12

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 C ourt amends its opinion filed J anuary 5 , 20 12 , 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**UN PUBLISHED** 

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

- C C E

- LPA )

Submitted : December 20, 2011 Decided: January 5, 2012

Before AGEE and WYNN , Ci rcuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: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 inferenc es in the light

most favo rable 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 e ntitled 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 &

Associate s , 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). O ur 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 notice , and did not require payment for any unused aircraft

hours if, as here, the contract w as 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