Miguel Tilley challenges the district court’s 1 order denying his claim for federal housing relocation benefits. We affirm.

After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Tilley’s claim for relocation benefits and personal property damages in this receivership action brought by the City of Kansas City, Missouri (City), against Housing Economic Development Financial Corporation (HEDFC). On appeal, Tilley challenges the district court’s credibility determinations and evidentiary rulings. The City and HEDFC urge this court to affirm and argue that Tilley’s failure to obtain a hearing transcript prevents consideration of his arguments on appeal. Tilley’s reply brief attempts to introduce new material and includes an untimely transcript request and an incomplete, unsworn financial affidavit, and HEDFC has moved to strike it.

Without a transcript of the hearing, this court cannot review the district court’s factual findings or any issues involving witness credibility or evidentiary rulings. See Van Treese v. Blome, 7 F.3d 729, 729 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam); Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 827 F.2d 384, 385-86 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). In any event, credibility determinations are within the exclusive domain of the district court and are virtually unreviewable on appeal. See Chaganti & Assocs. v. Nowotny, 470 F.3d 1215, 1222 (8th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 2977, 168 L.Ed.2d 704 (2007). Thus, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we deny Tilley’s untimely and incomplete transcript request. See Fed. R.App. P. 10(b)(1). The motion to strike is denied as moot.