
    UNITED STATES of America, ex rel, Joshua HARMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee v. TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; Trinity Highway Products, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees v. The Center for Auto Safety; The Safety Institute, Incorporated, Movants-Appellants.
    No. 15-40459
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 9, 2015.
    George F. Carpinello, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, L.L.P., Abany, N.Y., Christopher M. Green, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, L.L.P., Armonk, N.Y., Barrett E. Pope, Durrettecrump, P.L.C., Richmond, VA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    James C. Ho, Esq., Prerak Shah, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, L.L.P., Heather Bailey New, Esq., Bell, Nunnally & Martin, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Appellants The Center for Auto Safety and The Safety Institute, Inc. appeal the district court’s denial of their second motion to intervene. As explained in our decision affirming the denial of their first motion to intervene, Appellants seek to intervene for the limited purpose of unsealing the record. The district court concluded that Appellants’ motion was moot because it had already granted Relator Joshua Harman’s motion to unseal the record. Appellants counter that their motion is not moot because the district court’s order granting this relief was neither final nor unappealable — and has been appealed by Appellees Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, L.L.C. Assuming without deciding that Appellants are correct, the district court’s order has since become final and unappealable, as this Court recently granted Appellees’ motion to voluntary dismiss their interlocutory appeal of the unsealing order. As a result, Appellants’ second motion to intervene is now indisputably moot, and we DISMISS this appeal. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      . See United States ex rel. Harman v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 599 Fed.Appx. 193, 193 (5th Cir.2015).
     
      
      . No. 15-40337, Dkt. 83.
     
      
      . Jackson v. Johnson, 217 F.3d 360, 364-65 & n. 20 (5th Cir.2000) (recognizing that a ‘‘case becomes moot on appeal once appellant has received all of the relief requested”).
     