
    Paul Den BESTE, Appellant, v. Donald LEWIN; et al., Appellees.
    No. 13-15460.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 3, 2014.
    Paul Den Beste, pro se.
    
      Elizabeth Berke-Dreyfuss, Wendel, Ro-sen, Black & Dean LLP, Oakland, CA, Jerry R. Hauser, Esquire, Millerhauser Law Group, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Appellees.
    Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Paul Den Beste appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate the judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dish No. U, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Den Beste’s motion to vacate its judgment because Den Beste failed to establish any basis for such relief. See id. at 1263 (setting forth grounds to vacate judgment).

Den Beste’s opposed motion to strike appellees’ briefs and for sanctions, filed on October 7, 2013, is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     