
    Paul SALEH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. QDEROPATEO LLC, Qdero Limited (BVI), Qdero Limited Hong Kong, Defendants, Albert Francesco, Christopher Buffalino, Andrew M. Gaines II, Defendants-Appellants.
    
    No. 12-1939.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
    Charles Edward Schmidt, Kennedy, Lillis, Schmidt & English, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Albert Francesco, pro se, Hazlet, NJ.
    Christopher Buffalino, pro se, Hazlet, NJ.
    Andrew M. Gaines, II, pro se, Hazlet, NJ.
    PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, AMALYA L. KEARSE, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendants-Appellants Albert Frances-co, Christopher Buffalino, and Andrew M. Gaines II, proceeding pro se, appeal the district court’s entry of default judgment against them in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee Paul Saleh pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) and its order denying their motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) for relief from the district court’s entry of default judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural histoiy of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review an entry of default judgment for abuse of discretion. See Guggenheim Capital, LLC v. Birnbaum, 722 F.3d 444, 451 (2d Cir.2013). We also review motions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60 for abuse of discretion. See Johnson v. Univ. of Rochester Med. Ctr., 642 F.3d 121, 125 (2d Cir.2011) (per curiam) (Rule 60); India.com, Inc. v. Dalal, 412 F.3d 315, 320 (2d Cir.2005) (Rule 59). A district court abuses its discretion when its decision rests on an error of law or a clearly erroneous factual finding, or cannot be found within the range of permissible decisions. Johnson, 642 F.3d at 125.

Here, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly entered default judgment and denied the appellants’ motion pursuant to Rules 59 and 60. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough decisions entered on November 10, 2011 and March 30, 2012.

We have considered all of the appellants’ arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment and order of the district court. The appellee also requests an award of attorneys’ fees, in accordance with the parties’ contract, for the work of his counsel in connection with this appeal. We accordingly REMAND the case to the district court for determination of such an award in the first instance.  