Sathianathan

MEMORANDUM

Raghavan Sathianathan appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate an arbitration award entered against him and granting Smith Barney, Inc.’s motion to confirm the award, from the district court’s order dismissing his second amended complaint without leave to amend, and from the district court’s order denying his Rule 60(b) motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award, Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 505 F.3d 874, 879 (9th Cir.2007), and for an abuse of discretion a district court’s order denying amendment of a complaint, DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir.1987) and its order under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 60(b), United States v. Asarco, Inc., 430 F.3d 972, 978 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The district court properly confirmed the arbitration award and denied Sathianathan’s motion to vacate it because Sathianathan has not demonstrated the existence of any permissible ground for vacating the award. See Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987 , 998 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc) (explaining that federal courts…