We affirm the judgment of the district court because Rule 60(b)(4) F.R.C.P. is not an appropriate vehicle for Eurocopter and AEC to challenge the sanctions order for the following reasons:
1. Appellants have not demonstrated why the proper vehicle for challenging the sanctions order was not a direct appeal from the final judgment. While Rule 60(b)(4) may relieve a party who demonstrates one of the six bases for relief under the rule, it may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See Gary v. Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804 (5th Cir.1980).
2. Also, appellants’s reliance on Rule 60(b)(4) to challenge the district court’s sanctions order does not comport with the purpose of the rule. Rule 60(b)(4) is intended to strike a balance between preserving the finality of a judgment and insuring that justice was done. See Williams v. New Orleans Public Service, 728 F.2d 730, 733 (5th Cir.1984). Because appellants elected to submit to the judgment of dismissal by agreeing to a settlement without reserving their right to appeal the sanctions order, application of Rule 60(b) in this instance would result in unnecessary disruption of the district court’s final judgment. A balancing of the equities in this case falls in favor of preserving the finality of the judgment.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.