                                           Filed:   September 17, 1996


                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                           Nos. 95-2743(L)
                            (CA-92-370-K)


Frontier Communications of the Mid Atlantic,
Inc., etc., et al,

                                             Plaintiffs - Appellants,

           versus

Long Distance Services, Inc., etc., et al,

                                              Defendants - Appellees.




                              O R D E R


    The Court amends its opinion filed September 4, 1996, as

follows:
    On page 2, section 2 -- the panel information is corrected to

read "Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.*"

    On page 3, first full paragraph, line 4 -- a space is added

between "§ 1962(a)," and "(c)-(d)."

    On page 3, second full paragraph, line 7 -- a period is added

after the "A" in "U.S.C.A."

                                       For the Court - By Direction

                                          /s/ Patricia S. Connor
Acting Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS OF THE
MID ATLANTIC, INCORPORATED,
formerly known as Mid Atlantic
Telecom, Incorporated; WALTER C.
ANDERSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
                                                No. 95-2743
v.

LONG DISTANCE SERVICES,
INCORPORATED, a/k/a Long Distance
Service of Washington,
Incorporated; RICHARD J. RICE,
Defendants-Appellees.

FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS OF THE
MID ATLANTIC, INCORPORATED,
formerly known as Mid Atlantic
Telecom, Incorporated; WALTER C.
ANDERSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
                                                No. 95-2744
v.

LONG DISTANCE SERVICES,
INCORPORATED, a/k/a Long Distance
Service of Washington,
Incorporated; RICHARD J. RICE,
Defendants-Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge.
(CA-92-370-K)
Argued: July 8, 1996

Decided: September 4, 1996

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.*

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Harry Martin Rifkin, LEVIN & GANN, P.A., Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellants. Michael R. Lewis, JAMES & HOFFMAN,
P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Edgar N. James,
JAMES & HOFFMAN, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs, Frontier Communications of the Mid Atlantic, Incorpo-
rated and Walter C. Anderson (collectively, "Mid Atlantic"), and
Defendants, Long Distance Services, Incorporated and Richard J.
Rice (collectively, "LDS"), cross appeal the judgment of the district
court awarding damages and attorney's fees to Mid Atlantic. We
affirm.
_________________________________________________________________

* Judge Williams participated in the hearing of these appeals at oral
argument but recused herself prior to the time the decision was filed. The
decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C.A. § 46(d) (West
1993).

                    2
In 1992, Mid Atlantic brought this action, alleging that LDS and
its president violated and conspired to violate provisions of the Rack-
eteer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). See 18
U.S.C.A. § 1962(a), (c)-(d) (West 1984 & Supp. 1996). Mid Atlantic
based its claim on LDS' use of a computer program that randomly
added additional time to the telephone calls of LDS' customers,
enabling the company to offer artificially lower rates than its competi-
tors. This was intended to and did entice customers to change to LDS
as their long-distance service provider. The district court granted sum-
mary judgment in favor of LDS without permitting Mid Atlantic to
engage in discovery. In a prior opinion, this court vacated the grant
of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. See Mid
Atlantic Telecom, Inc. v. Long Distance Servs., Inc., 18 F.3d 260 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 323 (1994).

Following remand, the parties proceeded to trial before the district
court. The lower court found that LDS had indeed engaged in the
scheme alleged and that Mid Atlantic had lowered its rates in some
instances as a result of LDS' fraudulent representations. The court
further found that Mid Atlantic was injured in the amount of
$17,210.31 as a result of LDS' RICO violation and then trebled that
amount. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 1964(c) (West Supp. 1996). And, the dis-
trict court also assessed damages against LDS on Mid Atlantic's state-
law claims of unfair competition and tortious interference with con-
tract. Finally, the court awarded reasonable attorney's fees to Mid
Atlantic. See id.

Both parties appeal from the judgment of the district court, raising
numerous errors. After carefully considering the arguments and briefs
of counsel and reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the
district court. Frontier Communications of the Mid Atlantic, Inc. v.
Long Distance Servs., Inc., No. 92-370 (D. Md. Aug. 24, 1995).

AFFIRMED

                    3
