¶1 ORDER
¶2 Robert Smith (Defendant) appeals the judgment of conviction entered by the Cir *859 cuit Court of the City of St. Louis after a jury found him guilty of four counts of fraudulently attempting to obtain a controlled substance. Defendant claims the trial court erred by denying defense counsel’s motion for a continuance.
¶3 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.
¶4 We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).