UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

LIGHTBURN AND ASSOCIATES,
INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                No. 97-1058
v.

RAPTOR SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellant.

LIGHTBURN AND ASSOCIATES,
INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                                No. 97-1448
v.

RAPTOR SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee.

LIGHTBURN AND ASSOCIATES,
INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                No. 97-1450
v.

RAPTOR SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
(CA-95-576-WMN)

Argued: October 28, 1997

Decided: December 17, 1997
Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge,
and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Robert Todd Cronan, GOODWIN, PROCTOR & HOAR,
L.L.P., Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellant. Matthew Scott Sturtz,
MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Steven E. Skwara, GOODWIN, PROCTOR & HOAR,
L.L.P., Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellant. Jefferson V. Wright,
Joseph W. Hovermill, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C., Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Lightburn and Associates, Inc. ("LAI") sued Raptor Systems, Inc.
("Raptor"), alleging that Raptor hindered sales to two potential LAI
customers. Raptor counterclaimed, alleging that as a reseller of Rap-
tor's products LAI failed diligently to promote sales and prejudiced
Raptor's own sales efforts. The district court granted Raptor summary
judgment on LAI's claims, refusing to attribute LAI's loss of poten-
tial business to Raptor. The court found that one sale never took place
because the prospective purchaser independently decided it did not
need the products LAI offered and that the other potential customer
refused to contract with LAI because it liked neither its products nor
its president. The district court also granted LAI summary judgment

                    2
on Raptor's counterclaims, finding no breach of the obligation to pro-
mote Raptor products during the life of an exclusive reselling agree-
ment, no continuing duty to promote after that agreement lapsed, and
no evidence that LAI's actions harmed Raptor's reputation with
potential customers.

Our review of the record, written and oral submissions of the par-
ties, and the appropriate legal standards persuades us of the correct-
ness of the district court's grant of summary judgment to Raptor. We
therefore affirm that judgment on the reasoning set forth in the district
court's memorandum opinion, Lightburn & Associates, Inc. v. Raptor
Systems, Inc., Civil No. WMN-95-576 (D. Md. December 9, 1996).
At oral argument, Raptor abandoned its counterclaims if it prevailed
on LAI's suit against it.

AFFIRMED

                     3
