SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Jeffrey Salt, proceeding pro se, appeals from a May 8, 2015 default judgment and order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Roman, J.) in favor of plaintiff Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. On appeal, Salt challenges the district court’s prior denials of his. various motions for intervention, substitution as a defendant, and reconsideration, We review for abuse of discretion the denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 motions to intervene and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b) motions for reconsideration. Gomez v. City of New York, 805 F.3d 419, 423 (2d Cir. 2015) (reconsideration); DSI Assocs. LLC v. United States, 496 F.3d 175, 182-83 (2d Cir. 2007) (intervention). A 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 renders a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” Gomez, 805 F.3d at 423 (internal quotations omitted). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

Waterkeeper Alliance sued the Spirit of Utah Wilderness, Inc. (“SUW”) for trademark infringement in February 2010. Four years later, SUW’s counsel withdrew from the case. After numerous extensions, SUW could not obtain counsel, and Salt, SUW’s founder and Executive Director, moved to intervene in the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) or (b) and for substitution as a defendant pursuant to Rule 25(c). The district court denied the motions for intervention and substitution, denied Salt’s subsequent motions for reconsideration, and ultimately granted default judgment in favor of Waterkeeper Alliance, enjoining SUW and its officers and agents, including Salt, from further infringing on Water-keeper Alliance’s trademarks.

On appeal, Salt argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to intervene. We disagree. Before a court will grant a motion to intervene under Rule 24(a) or (b), the proposed interve-nor must “(1) timely file an application, (2) show an interest in the action, (3) demonstrate that the interest may be impaired by the disposition of the action, and (4) show that the interest is not protected adequately by the parties to the action.” Floyd v. City of New York, 770 F.3d 1051, 1057 (2d Cir. 2014). Salt’s application to intervene was out of time. Furthermore, the district court’s denials of Salt’s motions for reconsideration were not an abuse of discretion because Salt did not identify any cognizable errors or facts that the district court overlooked. See Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012).

We have considered Salt’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.