After this appeal was dismissed for Appellants’ failure to order a transcript timely and make financial arrangements with the court reporter, it was reinstated on „ . September 26, 2007, leaving pending m the district court Appellees’ motions for at least $425,000 attorney’s fees pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(2). A review of the record on appeal demonstrates that Appellants’ untimely performance in this court mirrors a lengthy history in the district court of dilatoriness and hollow posturing interspersed with periods of non-performanee or insubstantial performance and compliance by Appellants and their counsel, leaving the unmistakable impression that they have no purpose other than to prolong this contumacious litigation for purposes of harassment or delay, or both. The time is long overdue to termmate Appellants’ feckless litigation at the obvious cost of time and money to the Defendants by affirming all rulings of the distnct court but remanding the case to that court for the reinstatement of its consideration of Appellees’ motion for attorney’s fees. In so doing, we caution Appellants that any further efforts to prolong or continue proceedings in this court, including the filing of petitions for rehearing, will potentially expose them to the fall panoply of penalties, sanctions, damages, and double costs pursuant to FRAP 38 at our disposal. 1

AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR RULING AND DETERMINATION OF APPELLEES’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES.