22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4ba,MEMORANDUM Michael Cohen appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his untimely motion to modify the terms of arbitration under a class action settlement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review the district court’s enforcement of a settlement agreement for an abuse of discretion. Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cohen’s motion because Cohen neither objected to the terms of the settlement nor appealed from the judgment settling the class action in a timely manner. See Gendron v. Shastina Properties, Inc., 578 F.2d 1313, 1314-15 (9th Cir.1978) (appellant who failed to perfect a timely appeal from a judgment settling a class action is “precluded from challenging the ... fairness of the agreement”). Contrary to appellees’ contention, the district court’s order was final and appeal-able. See United States v. One 1986 Ford Pickup, 56 F.3d 1181 , 1184-85 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (discussing finality rule in context of post-judgment orders). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4ec,

MEMORANDUM

Michael Cohen appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his untimely motion to modify the terms of arbitration under a class action settlement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review the district court’s enforcement of a settlement agreement for an abuse of discretion. Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cohen’s motion because Cohen neither objected to the terms of the settlement nor appealed from the judgment settling the class action in a timely manner. See Gendron v. Shastina Properties, Inc., 578 F.2d 1313, 1314-15 (9th Cir.1978) (appellant who failed to perfect a timely appeal from a judgment settling a class action is “precluded from challenging the ... fairness of the agreement”).

Contrary to appellees’ contention, the district court’s order was final and appeal-able. See United States v. One 1986 Ford Pickup, 56 F.3d 1181 , 1184-85 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (discussing finality rule in context of post-judgment orders).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.