With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and misconduct on the part of the DEA, which falls under Rule 60(b)(3). Reed did not file his motion within one year after the 1992 order was entered, and accordingly, the motion was untimely. Moreover, Reed presented no new facts, arguments, or evidence to explain why he was unable to directly appeal the 1992 order or to justify the 13-year delay between the 1992 order and the 2005 Rule 60(b) motion. On this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. AFFIRMED. 1 . Given our resolution of the Rule 60(b) issue, we discern no abuse of the district court’s discretion in its denial of Reed's Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the order denying his Rule 60(b) motion. Cf. Mays v. U.S. Postal Serv., 122 F.3d 43, 46 (11th Cir. 1997) (<HOLDING>). 2 . In construing Reed's arguments, we have

A: holding that denial of joinder motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion
B: holding denial of continuance to be an abuse of discretion
C: holding that denial of untimely request was not abuse of discretion
D: holding that we will not overturn a denial of a rule 59 motion absent an abuse of discretion
D.