Guy Blume appeals from the final judgment entered by the district court 1 in this action brought by American Dairy Queen Corporation. He challenges the default judgment entered against him, the denial of his requests to transfer venue, and the dismissal of his counterclaims. 2 Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in entering the default judgment or in dismissing Blume’s counterclaims as sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. See Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 545 v. Hope Elec. Corp., 380 F.3d 1084, 1105 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review; default judgment may be *546 upheld if within range of acceptable sanctions); Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Mfg. Co., 481 F.2d 1204, 1211-14 (8th Cir. 1973) (with-prejudice dismissal of counterclaims as Rule 37 sanction did not constitute abuse of discretion). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to transfer venue. See In re Apple, Inc., 602 F.3d 909, 912-13 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (standard of review; courts give considerable deference to plaintiffs choice of forum, and thus party seeking transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) typically bears burden of proving transfer is warranted).

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