
    The HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, by His Excellency Donald Anthony Lewis, Co-Sovereign, Plaintiff, and Donald Anthony LEWIS, His Excellency Donald Anthony Lewis on behalf of The Hawaiian Kingdom, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, 4.030 Acres plus expanded taking 97-00571DAE, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-17569.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    
    Filed Jan. 28, 2016.
    Donald Anthony Lewis, His Excellency Donald Anthony Lewis on Behalf of The Hawaiian Kingdom, Honolulu, HI, pro se.
    Thomas A. Helper, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for DefendanL-Appellee.
    Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Donald Anthony Lewis appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the denial of a motion to vacate under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4). Export Group v. Reef Indus., Inc., 54 F.3d 1466, 1469 (9th Cir.1995). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Lewis was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(4) because the district court did not lack jurisdiction over the action or the state of Hawaii, and its prior judgments were not void. See United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 271, 130 S.Ct. 1367, 176 L.Ed.2d 158 (2010) (a judgment may be set aside under Rule 60(b)(4) “only for the exceptional case in which the court that rendered judgment lacked even an ‘arguable basis’ for jurisdiction” (internal citation omitted)); United States v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448, 1456 (9th Cir.1993) (rejecting contention that the federal district court lacks jurisdiction over Hawaiian nationals).

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