MEMORANDUM **
Joseph S. Amundsen appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate a permanent injunction entered against him in 1983. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We *652review for an abuse of discretion, Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Amundsen’s motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5) because Amundsen failed to demonstrate that any changed circumstances have made his compliance with the injunction “substantially more onerous, unworkable because of unforeseen obstacles, detrimental to the public interest, or legally impermissible.” SEC v. Coldicutt, 258 F.3d 939, 942 (9th Cir.2001) (district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiffs request to terminate a permanent injunction due to changed circumstances).
To the extent that Amundsen’s motion falls within Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3), the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it because Amundsen filed his motion more than one year after judgment was entered. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1) (Rule 60(b)(3) motion must be made within one year of entry of judgment); Nevitt v. United States, 886 F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir.1989) (a district court lacks jurisdiction to consider an untimely motion to set aside a judgment).
Amundsen’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.