
    AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF THE SOUTHWEST, INC.; et al., Plaintiffs, AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc.; Taylor Communications, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, Defendant, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Appellant. Caprock Communications Corp.; Golden Harbor of Texas, Inc.; Westel, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. City of Dallas, Texas, Defendant, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Appellant. Sprint Communications Company, LP, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. City of Dallas, Texas, Defendant, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Appellant.
    No. 99-11397.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 17, 2001.
    Lionel Mark Schooler (argued), Jackson & Walker, Houston, TX, for Sprint Communications Co., LP.
    David John Schenck (argued), Robert Edwin Davis, Hughes & Luce, Dallas, TX, David F. Brown, SBC Communications, Austin, TX, for Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
    Clarence A. West, Joe Wallace Beverly, Houston, TX, for City of Dallas, Texas and Texas Coalition of Cities on Franchised Utilities Issues (TCCFUI), Amicus Curiae.
    Thomas K. Anson, Sheinfeld, Maley & Kay, Andrew W. Austin, Austin, TX, George H. Tarpley, Sheinfeld, Maley & Kay, Dallas, TX, David F. Graham (argued), Sidley & Austin, Chicago, IL, for AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc.
    Before HILL, JOLLY and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       United States Circuit Judge of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:

The petition for rehearing filed by Sprint Communications Company is DENIED.

On March 26, 2001, Teligent, Inc. submitted a letter requesting a correction in the language of the March 15, 2001 opinion in this case. Treating the letter as a petition for rehearing, the petition is granted as follows: Footnote ** will be added after the first sentence of the first paragraph. This footnote will read as follows:

Southwestern Bell filed a motion to dismiss its appeal against Teligent, Inc. (“Teligent”), which this court granted on March 30, 2000. Thus, the judgment in favor of Teligent is not affected by this appeal.

In all other respects, the opinion remains unchanged, and all other relief is DENIED.  