Michael Carmie Antonelli appeals following the district court’s 1 dismissal of his habeas petition and the denial of the post-judgment motions he filed more than ten days after entry of the judgment. Antonelli’s appeal is timely only as to the denial of his post-judgment motions, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); 4(a)(4)(B)(i), and liberally construing the post-judgment motions as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motions, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying any of them, see Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 164-65, 169-70 (8th Cir. 1988) (construing post-judgment motion filed more than 10 days after entry of judgment under Rule 60(b); standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.