[Unpublished]

More than one year after the district court 1 denied Eric Shields’s employment-discrimination suit as frivolous, Shields filed new papers, including a motion for reconsideration. The filings included a variety of information, such as lists of government officials, biblical quotes, and selected federal statutes. The district court denied reconsideration, and Shields timely appeals.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration, because nothing in Shields’s filings demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting relief from the judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6); Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 169-70 (8th Cir. 1988); Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001) (appeal from denial of Rule 60(b) motion does not present underlying judgment for review; movant must demonstrate exceptional circumstances to warrant Rule 60(b)(6) relief), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 975, 122 S.Ct. 400, 151 L.Ed.2d 304 (2001), reh’g denied, 534 U.S. 1102, 122 S.Ct. 863, 151 L.Ed.2d 737 (2002). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.