Filed: January 25, 2012 

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 Court amends its opinion filed January 5, 2012, 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
UNPUBLISHED

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-CCE-LPA)

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

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 inferences in the light 

most favorable 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 entitled 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 & 

Associates, 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). Our 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 was 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