
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael CAREY and Leone Carey, Defendants-Appellants, and Douglas J. Carpa, (or his successor trustee), as Trustee of the Ranch Holding Trust; et al., Defendants, John Carey; et al., Applicants for Intervention.
    No. 10-16361.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed July 1, 2011.
    Kari D. Larson, Esquire, Richard Far-ber, Esquire, Supervisory, Steven W. Parks, Kenneth W. Rosenberg, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Leone Carey, Redding, CA, pro se.
    Michael Carey, Redding, CA, pro se.
    John Carey, Palo Cedro, CA, pro se.
    Byron Carey, Palo Cedro, CA, pro se.
    George Carey, Palo Cedro, CA, pro se.
    Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael Carey and Leone Carey appeal pro se from the district court’s order denying their motion to vacate the judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s decision on a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) motion. Retail Clerks Union Joint Pension Trust v. Freedom Food Ctr., Inc., 938 F.2d 136, 137 (9th Cir.1991). We affirm.

The district court properly denied the Careys’ motion to vacate as untimely because the motion was filed nearly three years after the judgment, and the Careys did not provide any legitimate excuse for the delay. See, e.g., Hammer v. Drago (In re Hammer), 940 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir.1991) (un-excused two year delay in filing a motion for relief from judgment was unreasonable). Moreover, contrary to the Careys’ contentions, the bankruptcy court ruled that their tax liability was non-dis-chargeable. See United States v. Carey (In Re Carey), 326 B.R. 816, 824 (Bankr. E.D.Cal.2005).

The Careys’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We do not consider matters that are not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

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