SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Appellant Kendell Stephens, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s February 3, 2014 order vacating its prior December 2012 order, thereby denying Stephens’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from the court’s judgment dismissing his civil action. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review a district court’s ruling on a motion to reopen the time to file a notice *38 of appeal under Rule 4(a)(6) for abuse of discretion. See In re WorldCom, Inc., 708 F.3d 327, 340 (2d Cir. 2013). The district court abuses its discretion if it bases its ruling “on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or rendered a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” In re Sims, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted). We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error, affording deference to the district court’s credibility determinations following an evidentiary hearing. Phoenix Global Ventures, LLC v. Phoenix Hotel Associates, Ltd., 422 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985).

Upon an independent review of the entire record of the proceedings on remand and the relevant case law, we find no clear error in the district court’s factual finding that Stephens received notice of the judgement — either personally or through counsel — no later than October 5, 2012. Accepting the district court’s findings, as we must in the absence of clear error, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating its December 2012 order and denying Stephens an extension of time to appeal.

We have considered all of Stephens’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the February 3, 2014 order of the district court substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in that order.