# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________**
No. 23

- 10111 Summary Calendar

**____________ Albert G. Hill, III,**  individually, and as a Beneficiary of the Margaret Hunt Trust Estate, derivatively on behalf of the Margaret Hunt Trust Estate, individually, As a beneficiary of the Haroldson Lafayette Hunt Jr. Trust Estate, and derivatively on Behalf of the Haroldson **,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**William Schilling,** individually and in his capacity as a member of the Advisory Board MHTE and a member of the Advisory Board of the HHTE **; Ivan Irwin, Jr.; Alinda H. Wikert; Lyda Hill; Heather V.**  **Washburne; Elisa M. Summers; Wi lliam Herbert Hunt,**  in his capacity as the personal representative of the estate of Tom Hunt **; Brett Ringle,**  Individually and in his capacity as a member of the Advisory Board of the MHTE **; John W. Creecy,** Individually and in his capacity as Trustee of **the H HTE; Margaret Keliher,**  Individually and in her capacity as Trustee of the MHTE and a member of the Advisory Board of the HHTE **; Margaret Keliher,**  Temporary Administrator of **the Estate of Albert G. Hill, Jr.,** 

Defendants

— Appellees **,**

versus

**Marco Antonio Mo ntemayor, Esq.; Kenneth Robert**  **Stewart, Jr.,** also known as **Kenneth R. Stewart, Jr.,**

Movants

— Appellants

**.** United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 1, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-10111 Document: 00517053526 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/20242 **______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:07

- CV

- 2020

**______________________________**
Before **Wiener, Stewart,** and **Douglas,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *****
Kenneth Robert Stewart, Jr., and Marco Antonio Montemayor appeal
from the denial of their motion to intervene. The district court determined that the appellants were not entitled to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) because their request to intervene was not timely made . The district court li kewise reasoned that the appellants did not show that they were entitled to permissive intervention.
The appellants have not addressed any of the district court’s reasons for denying their motion to intervene. Therefore, the judgment of the district
court is **AFFIRMED**

. See Sommers v. Bank of America, NA , 835 F.3d 509,

512

- 14 (5th Cir. 2016 ); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987)

. The motion to vacate the judgment of the
district court and the motion to expedite are **DENIED**

. The appellants are

**WARNED** t hat the filing of frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive pleadings will invite the imposition of sanctions, which may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and limits on their ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. See Coghlan v. Starkey , 852 F.2d 806, 817 n.21 (5th Cir. 1988)

.

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. Case: 23-10111 Document: 00517053526 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2024