
    Belva WEBB; Faith Webb, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Joseph P. MORELLA, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-30929
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 1, 2015.
    Daniel G. Abel, Esq., Daniel G. Abel, Incorporated Legal Department, Metairie, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.’
    James L. Pate, Esq., Sara Beth Ro-drigue, Esq., Neunerpate, James Huey Gibson, Allen & Gooch, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

This case is before us on appeal for the second time, having been remanded the first time for the district court to determine the precise quantum of sanctions imposed under Rule 11. This time, the sole issue on appeal is the district court’s ruling on remand that denied Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Rule 59 Motion and determined the precise amounts of the sanctions under Rule 11.

Like everything heretofore presented by Plaintiffs-Appellants and their counsel, both to the district court and to us in the prior appeal, the instant appeal is totally without basis in fact and in law and wholly unmeritorious. We therefore affirm all rulings presented in this appeal, but note in passing that Plaintiffs-Appellants and their counsel are fortunate that Defendant-Appellee has not sought further sanctions or penalties under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 for a frivolous appeal. We nevertheless caution Plaintiffs-Appellants and their counsel against further prolongation of this unduly protracted and meritless litigation, lest they incur additional sanctions and penalties.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     