United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 10-1116 September Term, 2010
 FILED ON: MARCH 22, 2011
STATON HOLDINGS, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS STATON WHOLESALE,
PETITIONER
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
RESPONDENTS
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P. AND VERIZON,
INTERVENORS
On Petition for Review of an Order 
of the Federal Communications Commission
Before: GARLAND and BROWN, Circuit Judges, and RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge
J U D G M E N T
 This appeal was considered on the record, the briefs, and the oral arguments of the
parties. The court has accorded the issues full consideration and has determined they do not
warrant a published opinion. See FED. R. APP. P. 36; D.C. CIR. R. 36(d). For the reasons stated
below, it is 
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition for review be denied.
From September 1998 through October 2000, Staton Holdings was the authorized user of
the “All Eights Number,” 888-888-8888. In October 2000, Staton’s phone carrier, MCI
WorldCom Communications, Inc. mistakenly disconnected Staton from the number and
subsequently reassigned the number to another company. That company switched carriers, from
MCI to Sprint Communications Company. More than two years after the disconnection, Staton
finally sought relief from MCI (as the wrongful actor) and Sprint (as the current carrier) before
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). At that point, however, MCI was embroiled in
Case: 10-1116    Document: 1299286    Filed: 03/22/2011    Page: 1
bankruptcy proceedings, making Staton a potential creditor. Presumably desiring some finality to
the bankruptcy process, the Bankruptcy Court only consented to Staton’s pursuit of its claims
before the agency in exchange for the parties’ agreement that, if the agency concluded MCI’s
conduct was negligent as opposed to willful, damages would be liquidated at $1000 and Staton’s
damages claims would “not [be] subject to further appeal by either party.” J.A. 341.
The FCC did indeed make a negligence finding, and after a failed motion for
reconsideration, Staton now petitions this court. Staton presses three arguments for relief from
the FCC’s decision declining to reconsider Staton’s position. First, as Staton’s counsel
reluctantly admitted at argument, Staton is unable to challenge the FCC’s negligence finding. Or.
Arg. 4:25–6:30. Because the finding of negligence resolved Staton’s claim for damages, any
challenge to that finding falls squarely within the stipulation’s prohibition. 
Second, although counsel argued valiantly to the contrary, we find that the Bankruptcy
Court stipulation also bars our consideration of any newly discovered evidence. The parties
agreed Staton’s claim for damages was “not subject to further appeal by either party.” J.A. 341.
This language is quite broad; it precludes appeal of the damages finding on any ground. An
appeal asserting newly discovered evidence is still an appeal, and we cannot countenance review
of this argument.
Finally, Staton seeks equitable relief, asking this court to vacate the FCC’s
reconsideration order denying Staton’s request that the third party surrender to Staton the All
Eights Number. Under the APA, our review of the FCC’s decision denying that request is for
abuse of discretion. Cellco P’ship v. FCC, 357 F.3d 88, 93–94 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (quoting 5
U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)). Because Staton petitions for relief from the FCC’s Order on
Reconsideration, it is that decision we examine. Nonetheless, some background detailing the
FCC’s initial order is useful.
In its initial order denying Staton’s requested equitable relief, the FCC deemed
significant both Staton’s delay of nearly eighteen months before commencing proceedings and
Staton’s inability to quantify explicitly the amount of damages it suffered from loss of the All
Eights Number. The FCC also expressed concern about causing harm to the third party currently
using the All Eights Number if the FCC transferred that number back to Staton. Based on these
considerations, the FCC concluded the equities weighed against Staton. 
On its motion for reconsideration, Staton presented evidence that the third party was no
longer using the number, and argued that the balance of the equities now tipped in its favor. The
FCC again denied Staton relief, explaining that Staton’s new evidence was pure speculation.
That, coupled with Staton’s failure yet again to quantify its harm or to explain its delay in
seeking relief, counseled against granting Staton’s equitable request. Reviewing this
reconsideration order for abuse of discretion, we find no error in the FCC’s conclusion. The FCC
sufficiently explained its consideration of the equities, and its reasoning is therefore not subject
to attack under the APA’s “highly deferential” standard of review. See Cellco, 357 F.3d at
93–94. 
The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after
Case: 10-1116    Document: 1299286    Filed: 03/22/2011    Page: 2
the disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See FED. R. APP. P. 41(b); D.C. CIR. R.
41(a)(1). 
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
    BY: /s/
Jennifer M. Clark
Deputy Clerk
Case: 10-1116    Document: 1299286    Filed: 03/22/2011    Page: 3