alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ecoland
International, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ending November 30, 2008, I, David
Wallace, Chief Financial Officer of Ecoland International, Inc., hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
that:




1.  Such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending August 31, 2008,
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and




2.  The
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
quarter ending August 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Ecoland International,
Inc.




Dated:
January 15, 2009




/s/  David
      WallaceDavid
      Wallace, Chief Financial Officer ofEcoland International,
Inc.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

BRIAN K. JACKSON,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-10014

D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00438-JCM-RJJ

MEMORANDUM*

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

SHANNON PARSONS,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-10015

D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00299-JCM-LRL

FILED

FEB 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
11-10014

11-10015

11-10016

2 11-10088 & 11-10149

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

WAYNE LAMARR GANAWAY,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-10016

D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00332-JCMGWF

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

SHARON HAMPTON,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Nos. 11-10088

11-10149

D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00316-JCMGWF

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

11-10014

11-10015

11-10016

3 11-10088 & 11-10149

Submitted February 21, 2012** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated appeals, the United States appeals the district court’s

orders denying the Government’s request for criminal forfeiture money judgments

against Shannon Parsons, Wayne Lamarr Ganaway, and Sharon Hampton, and

reducing the criminal forfeiture money judgment against Brian K. Jackson. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

In light of our holding in United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir.

2011), we vacate the district court’s orders denying the imposition of criminal

forfeiture money judgments against Parsons, Ganaway, and Hampton , and the

district court’s order reducing Jackson’s criminal forfeiture money judgment, and

we remand. 

The Government’s motion to vacate and remand for further proceedings is

denied as moot. 

VACATED and REMANDED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT P. CARICO,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 09-10124

v.

PAUL D. BORMAN

JEFFREY WOODS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Respondent.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION

On January 12, 2009, petitioner Robert P. Carico filed a pro se habeas corpus petition

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The pleading challenges Petitioner’s conviction and sentence of two to

five years for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Petitioner contends that he was sentenced

on the basis of inaccurate information and convictions for which he was not represented by

counsel. On July 27, 2009, respondent Jeffrey Woods filed an answer to the petition, and on

September 24, 2009, Petitioner filed a reply. 

 

Currently pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for immediate consideration of

his habeas petition. Petitioner alleges that, if granted relief, his sentence will be reduced, and he

will suffer less social stigma, prejudice, and discrimination. 

 

The Court is unable to give immediate consideration to Petitioner’s case due to older

habeas petitions pending on its docket. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for immediate

consideration [Dkt. #12] is DENIED. The Court nevertheless will attempt to address the merits
2

 of Petitioner’s habeas claims within the next ninety days. 

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 7, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

October 7, 2010.

s/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 142 Filed 09/04/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 3180
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 142 Filed 09/04/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 3181
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 34434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16816]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[FO Docket Nos. 91-171/91-301; DA No. 96-941]


Emergency Alert System

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission
ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the GSA final Rule on Federal Advisory 
Committee Management, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 
announces the amending and renewing of the advisory committee charter 
for the Emergency Broadcast System Advisory Committee. This amendment 
restructures this committee to reflect changes resulting from the new 
Emergency Alert System (EAS), and changes the name of the committee to 
the National Advisory Committee (NAC). The Advisory Committee is also 
renewed for a term that runs from July 25, 1996 to July 25, 1998. At 
the same time, the FCC terminates the National Business and Industry 
Advisory Council.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 25, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The EAS staff by phone at 202-418-
1220, or write the Office of the Emergency Alert System, Room 736, Stop 
Code 1500B1, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, NW, 
Washington, DC 20554.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: The purpose of the NAC is to assist the FCC 
in overseeing the new Emergency Alert System (EAS). The EAS recently 
replaced the Emergency Broadcast System as a means of alerting the 
public about emergencies. The primary mission of the NAC is to advise 
the Commission on all matters concerning the EAS and its 
implementation, including emergency alerting policies, technologies, 
plans, regulations, and procedures at the national, state, and local 
levels. The NAC also recommends and develops training and education 
regarding the EAS, and coordinates with state and local officials to 
assist in maintaining effective emergency alerting programs. The NAC is 
necessary and in the public interest because of the close coordination 
and exchange of information that is needed between the Federal 
Government, industry and state and local governments in implementing 
and operating the new EAS. The NAC's membership consists of volunteer 
government and industry personnel selected by the Commission. Members 
include representatives from broadcasting, cable, satellite, MMDS, 
other technologies, government agencies involved in emergency 
communications, State Emergency Communications Committees (SECC), and 
special audiences such as the hearing impaired. Officers of the NAC are 
elected for two year terms and consist of a President, and Subcommittee 
Chairs.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-16816 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

-- -- -- --

denied

NO. 15-0245

BOSHENG WEN

v.

KRISTOPHER AHN

§

§

§

§

§

§

Harris County,

1st District.

May 29, 2015

Petitioner's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

August 7, 2015

Petitioner's motion for rehearing of petition for review, filed herein in the above

numbered and styled case, having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.



I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above and attached is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of

Texas in the case numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of

said Court under the date shown.

It is further ordered that petitioner, BOSHENG WEN, pay all costs incurred on this

petition.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 7th day of August, 2015.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 13-50066 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. SEDRICK DEMON MCCARTHER, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:12-CR-296-1

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Sedrick D emon McCarther appeals h is 60-month above-guideline sentence, claiming that the sentence is greater than necessary to a chieve the sentencing goals of 18 U .S.C. § 3553(a) a nd i s thus unreasonable. W e r e vi e w s e n t e n c e s f

o r s ubstantive reasonableness under an abuse of di s c r e t i o n standard. Un i t e d S t a t es v. Johnson , 619 F.3d 469, 471-72 ( 5th Cir. 2010). McCarther’s complaint that t he drug offense guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1, is not empirically based is f

o r e c losed by our precedent. See United States v. Duarte , U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D October 24, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 13-50066 Document: 00512417976 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2013No. 13-50066

569 F.3d 528-29 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. M ondragon-Santiago , 564 F.3d 357 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009). Pointing out t h at he received a 36-month revocation sentence to run consecutively t o h i s instant sentence, McCarther contends that a shorter

s entence provides adequate deterrence. He also a sserts that h is personal h i s t o ry
su p p o r t s a lesser sentence, noting that he had a close relationship w ith his mother and s iblings, s truggled with substance abuse, a nd is attempting to find ways to support his children. The record s hows that the district court heard counsel’s a r g u m e nt on McCarther’s behalf regarding his s ubstance abuse problems a n d the lack of aggravating circumstances. T he court’s r emarks a lso reflect that it gave greater

w e i g ht to McCarther’s l ong and serious c riminal history, his continual recidivism, his apparent need for greater deterrence, and the goal of protecting the public from h is wrongdoing

. T he d istrict c o urt c o nsidered the § 3553(a) factors and gave indi v i d u a lized, case-specific reasons for its sentence. The upward variance was not an abuse of d iscretion. Se e J o h n s o n , 6 19 F.3d at 471-72; United States v. Mc E l wee , 646 F.3d 328, 338 (5th Cir. 2011). The sentence is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 13-50066 Document: 00512417976 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2013
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1

              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-30072) pertaining to the Galileo Technology Ltd. 1997 Employees'
Stock Option Plan and Galileo Technology Ltd. 1997 GTI Stock Option Plan, in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-30078) pertaining to the Galileo
Technology Ltd. 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 333-63205) pertaining to the Galileo Technology Ltd. 1998
Nonemployee Directors' Stock Option Plan of our report dated January 14, 2000,
except for note 12 as to which the date is February 29, 2000, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Galileo Technology Ltd.
included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 1999.


                                            /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Palo Alto, California
May 16, 2000
#### Larry R. POLLOCK, Appellant, v. Janette LOHMAN, Director of Revenue, Respondent.

No. WD 49678.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 14, 1995.

Loramel P. Shurtleff, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., James A. Chenault, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and ELLIS and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Larry R. Pollock, petitioned the Circuit Court of Boone County pursuant to § 302.311, RSMo 1986, asserting that he had received notice from the Director of Revenue of a ten-year loss of driving privileges as a result of multiple convictions for driving while intoxicated. The judgment denying relief is affirmed as Pollock’s petition does not allege facts entitling him to any 'relief.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EX-10.6.2



 Exhibit 10.6.2 
 [One Hundred Rupees Indua Non Judicial stamp] 
 ADDENDUM TO THE PRINCIPAL
AGREEMENT 
 This Addendum is made on the             day
of             April, 2011 by and the parties, mentioned herein: 
 MAGUS
Customer Dialog Pvt Ltd, 
 B1/E16 Mohan cooperative Industrial Estate 
 Mathura Road 
 New Delhi 110044      i.e. Party of the First
Part, 
 AND 
 TV18 Home
Shopping Network Ltd, 
 7th floor FC 24 
 Sector16A, Film city 
 Noida 201301      i.e. Party of the
Other Part 







 WHEREAS the above said parties entered into on agreement date 21-06-2008 (herein after referred to as Principal Agreement), subsequently the parties (as per clause 5.1 of the Principal Agreement) mutually agree to extend the term of the Principal Agreement. 

 

	 	1)	 	In pursuance thereof, the following clause/s’ shall be amended and read as part and parcel of the Principal Agreement 


Clause 5.1 shall be amended. The addition is to be read as follows: 

The Principal Agreement is herby renewed and period thereof extended for further period of 24 months commencing from
1st April 2011 and ending on 31.03.2013 

 

	 	2)	 	This Addendum does not change or alter any other term and condition’s of the Principal Agreement, other than those stated herein above. 


 

	 	3)	 	This Addendum would be considered as part and parcel of the Principal Agreement. 


 

	 	4)	 	In the event of any conflict (to the extent of the amendments mentioned in Para 1 above) between the terms of this Addendum and that of the Principal Agreement, the
terms of this Addendum shall prevail. 

  

	 	5)	 	This Addendum shall be signed by the parties and shall legally bind the parties thereof. 


This Addendum is effective from 1st April 2011 of which parties have signed and acknowledged. 
  

					
	 Magus Customer Dialog Pvt, Ltd.

 
 /s/ S. JAMBUNATHAN

 
 Authorised Signatory
	 		 	 TV18 Home Shopping Network Ltd.

 
 /s/ RAMAN GULATI

 
 Authorised
Signatory



  
 2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 149 (Friday, August 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44985-44986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17633]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-1261-000]


Naturener Glacial Wind Energy 1, LLC; Supplemental Notice That 
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 
204 Authorization

July 25, 2008.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Naturener Glacial Wind Energy 1, LLC's application for market-based 
rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is August 14, 2008.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission,

[[Page 44986]]

888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list.
    They are also available for review in the Commission's Public 
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the 
Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a 
document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any 
FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#581e1d0a1b17363431363d0b2d2828372a2c183e3d2a3b763f372e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94d2d1c6d7dbfaf8fdfaf1c7e1e4e4fbe6e0d4f2f1e6f7baf3fbe2">[email protected]</span></a> or call 
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17633 Filed 7-31-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

SAMMY LEWIS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 09-11059-DT

DR. PAUL DROUILLARD, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR LIMITED STAY AND SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Before the court are two pending motions for a stay: a May 22, 2009 motion to

stay filed by Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc., in which Plaintiffs concur, and a

June 9, 2009 motion to stay filed by Defendant Dr. Paul Drouillard. The motions have

been fully briefed and the court concludes a hearing is unnecessary. See E.D. Mich. LR

7.1(e)(2). The court has reviewed the briefs and determines that a stay would conserve

the resources of counsel and this court, as well as generally serve the interests of

justice. Thus, the court will grant the motions and issue a limited stay pending the

resolution of Brown v. Cassens Transp. Co., 546 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2008), petition for

cert. filed May 6, 2009. The stay will be imposed on all issues, except that the court will

allow Defendant Drouillard to file a limited motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that two pending motions to stay [Dkt. ## 18 & 23] are

GRANTED IN PART and this case is STAYED pending resolution of Brown v. Cassens

2:09-cv-11059-VAR-MJH Doc # 31 Filed 07/16/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 586
1After the stay is lifted all parties will be allowed to file more comprehensive

motions under Rule 12(b)(6) and Defendant Drouillard’s pursuit of a limited motion at

this point will not prejudice his, or any party’s, right to file a Rule 12(b)(6) motion at a

later date.

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\09-11059.LEWIS.Stay.wpd

2

Transp. Co., 546 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff is DIRECTED to notify the court

immediately when the Supreme Court rules on the pending petition for certiorari. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, despite the stay, Defendant Drouillard may file

a limited motion under Rule 12(b)(6) on any non-RICO issue which is specific only to

Defendant Drouillard.1

 Any such motion shall be filed on or before July 20, 2009. The

parties should refer to the local rules for a briefing schedule, and this court will

determine whether a hearing is necessary after receiving the motion to dismiss. See

E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e)(2).

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 16, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, July 16, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-11059-VAR-MJH Doc # 31 Filed 07/16/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 587
c56723_ex10-1.htm -- Converted by SEC Publisher, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing





Exhibit 10.1



OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT


      This AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”), effective as of January 1, 2009 (the “Effective Date”), between 24Holdings Inc. (the “Corporation”), a corporation organized under the laws of the State
of Delaware and Kirk M. Warshaw, LLC (the "LLC"), a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey.


     WHEREAS, the Corporation’s principal offices are located at 47 School Avenue, Chatham, New Jersey and such premises are owned by the LLC (the “Principal Offices”); and



     WHEREAS, the Corporation and the LLC wishes to enter into an agreement for use and occupancy of the Principal Offices and certain administrative services; 


     NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, it is agreed that:


     Effective as of the Effective Date, the Corporation hereby agrees that it shall pay to the LLC a quarterly occupancy and administrative services fee in the amount of U.S. five hundred dollars
($500) on each of January 1, April 1, July 1 and October 1 until such time as this Agreement is terminated by written notice of either party. 


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed and delivered this Agreement effective as of the Effective Date on January 29, 2009. 

 

	 	24HOLDINGS INC., 

    a Delaware corporation
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	
By:		 	 	
  /s/ Arnold P. Kling	
	 	 		 		
Name: Arnold P. Kling	
	 	 		 		
Title: President	
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	Kirk M. Warshaw, LLC., 

    a New Jersey limited liability company
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By: 	 	 	 /s/
      Kirk Warshaw 
	 	 	 	Name: Kirk Warshaw 
	 	 	 	Title: Managing Member
#### Otis CLARK, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 66742.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 25, 1995.

John M. Schilmoeller, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Traci J. Sanders, Asst. Atty Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).