USCA11 Case: 20-11355 Date Filed: 10/13/2021 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-11355 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MICHAEL ALCOCER,

Defendant-Appellant,

INOVATRADE, INC.,

Defendant. USCA11 Case: 20-11355 Date Filed: 10/13/2021 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 20-11355

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-23459-JAL ____________________

Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The District Court entered a final default judgment against Appellant in this case on April 5, 2013. On September 19, 2017, Appellant moved the District Court to set aside the judgment pur- suant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The District Court denied it on June 26, 2018. Appellant moved the District Court for the same relief again on February 20, 2020, and the Court denied his motion on March 23, 2020. On April 2, 2020, Appellant moved for the District Court to reconsider its order from March 23, 2020. Appellant then appealed the decision on April 8, 2020. The District Court denied the motion on April 28, 2020, and on May 8, 2020, Appellant filed an amended notice of appeal. The issue for us to decide is whether the District Court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside a default judgment entered seven years after the entry of the judgment and two years after the denial of Appellant’s earlier mo- tion to vacate the judgment—where there has been no intervening change in the law or facts, no justification for the delay, and the USCA11 Case: 20-11355 Date Filed: 10/13/2021 Page: 3 of 3

20-11355 Opinion of the Court 3

arguments for granting the motion are meritless. See Louis Vuit- ton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339, 1350 (11th Cir. 2013); United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 275, 130 S. Ct. 1367, 1377 (2010). (“Rule 60(b)(4) does not provide a license for litigants to sleep on their rights.”). There is no abuse of discre- tion here.

AFFIRMED.