CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHANDAR A. SNOW, aka Shawn Snow,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 19-1850
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:92-cr-81212-1—Robert H. Cleland, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: July 29, 2020
Before: GIBBONS, GRIFFIN, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

PER CURIAM. Chandar A. Snow, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. As set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court’s order.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
SUSAN ALLAN; JESSICA WILSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY, dba American Education Services,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 19-2043
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Marquette.
No. 2:14-cv-00054—Gordon J. Quist, District Judge.
Argued: April 28, 2020
Decided and Filed: July 29, 2020
Before: SILER, MOORE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Jessica Wilson and Susan Allan (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) received unwanted calls to their cell phones from Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (“PHEAA”) regarding their student-loan debt. They claim that those calls violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. (“TCPA”). The TCPA contains an autodialer ban, which generally makes it a finable offense to use an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) to make unconsented-to calls or texts. The question in this case is whether, as a matter of statutory interpretation, the Avaya autodialer system that PHEAA uses to make collection-related calls qualifies as an ATDS.

Although it is clear from the text of the autodialer definition under § 227(a) that a device that generates and dials random or sequential numbers qualifies as an ATDS, it is not clear whether a device like the Avaya system—that dials from a stored list of numbers only—qualifies as an ATDS. Fortunately, related provisions clear up any ambiguity. We hold that the plain text of § 227, read in its entirety, makes clear that devices that dial from a stored list of numbers are subject to the autodialer ban. We accordingly AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Plaintiffs.