
    Libby A. DEMERY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John M. McHUGH, Secretary of the Army, Defendant-Appellee, and Katherine Archuleta, Defendant.
    No. 15-2347.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 17, 2016.
    Decided: March 21, 2016.
    Libby A. Demery, Appellant Pro Se. Alex Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER', and KING, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Libby Demery appeals the district court’s letter order denying her motions fór Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(d)(3) relief and for re-cusal of the presiding district judge. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in Demery’s informal briefs. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). We have reviewed the record in light of Demery’s arguments and find no reversible error in the district court’s conclusion that Demery did not allege fraud on the court warranting post-judgment relief under Rule 60(d)(3).. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by- the district court. Demery v. McHugh, No. 8:13-cv-02389-PWG (D. Md. filed Oct. 23, 2015 & entered Oct. 26, 2015). We deny Demery’s motion requesting oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Demery’s informal briefs also address the court’s underlying judgment dismissing her claims of unlawful discrimination, retaliation, and veterans' preference violations in hiring, and its denial of Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) relief. Because Demery did not timely appeal those orders, they are not properly before us. See Fed. R.App. P. 3(c)(1)(B), 4(a)(1)(B), (4)(A)(iv); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 175-77 (4th Cir.2014). Further, insofar as Demery seeks appellate review of a sanctions request filed with the Department of Justice, such proceedings are not within this court’s jurisdiction.
     