The district court correctly abstained, as it was required to do under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). See also, e.g., Huffman v. Pursue, 420 U.S. 592, 95 S.Ct. 1200, 43 L.Ed.2d 482 (1975); Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U.S. 434, 97 S.Ct. 1911, 52 L.Ed.2d 486 (1977); Texas Ass’n of Business v. Earle, 388 F.3d 515, 519 (5th Cir. 2004). None of the exceptions to Younger abstention is present or even claimed. Appellants had and have ample opportunity to present their federal claims in the state proceeding. See, e.g., Juidice v. Vail, 430 *737 U.S. 327, 337, 97 S.Ct. 1211, 51 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977). It is immaterial that appellants do not seek to enjoin the entire state court proceedings but merely to control the decision of one matter therein. See Williams v. Rubiera, 539 F.2d 470, 473 (5th Cir. 1976); Ballard v. Wilson, 856 F.2d 1568, 1570 (5th Cir. 1988).

The decision of the district court is

AFFIRMED.