Before the court is an appeal from the district court’s Rule 11 sanction against pro se litigant, Leeland O. “White, for vexatious and frivolous litigation and for abusing the court system. Prior to imposing the sanctions, the district court had dismissed White’s substantive claim, which alleged that the defendants violated the False Claims Act through various frauds. 1 The' court entered a final judgment dismissing this claim in January 2006. White appealed from that judgment, and this court dismissed that appeal.

The present appeal was timely filed in May 2006 as to the district court’s sanctions order, which followed the defendants’ compliance with Rule U’s safe harbor provision and two previous warnings to White about the possibility of sanctions. “White’s brief to this court, however, does not address at all the propriety of the sanctions; instead, “White puts forth various arguments related to the district court’s dismissal of his substantive claim. Although *402 pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), arguments must be briefed to be preserved. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). White has thus waived any argument to the propriety of sanctions. As to White’s arguments concerning the district court’s dismissal of his substantive claim, White has already appealed from that judgment, and this court dismissed that appeal. In any event, White’s May 2006 notice of appeal is untimely as to the final judgment filed over three months earlier. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1), 4(a)(4)(A)(iii); see also Moody Nat’l Bank of Galveston v. GE Life & Annuity Assurance Co., 383 F.3d 249, 252-53 (5th Cir. 2004).

AFFIRMED. The defendants-appellees’ motion for attorney’s fees is DENIED.