                                                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                                                          Fifth Circuit
                                                                       F I L E D
                    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                        March 1, 2006
                            FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                            _____________________                  Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                           Clerk
                                No. 04-61132
                            _____________________

UNITY COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION,
                                                       Plaintiff - Appellee,

                                     versus

BELLSOUTH CELLULAR, ETC.; ET AL.,

                                                                    Defendants,

CINGULAR WIRELESS,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.
__________________________________________________________________

            Appeal from the United States District Court
       for the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg
                        USDC No. 2:03-CV-115
_________________________________________________________________

Before JOLLY, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     In this appeal, in which the primary issue relates to contract

interpretation, we have studied the briefs, the relevant parts of the

record, the cases to which we have been referred, particularly the

Georgia    cases,    and   have   heard   the   well-presented   arguments      of

counsel.    We are unable to say that the district court erred in its

denial of the motion for summary judgment and in permitting this case

to go forward.         Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for further

proceedings.




     *
      Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the
limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
