¶1ORDER
¶2Jerald Noland appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value but a memorandum explaining our reasoning has been provided to the parties.
¶3Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).