Per Curiam.
[¶ 1] Jaimie Mudge appealed from a criminal judgment and order denying his request for modification of his sentence. Mudge argues the district court erred in construing his letters as applications for post-conviction relief and in denying his requested relief. We conclude the judgment of the district court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in construing Mudge's letters as applications for post-conviction relief. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
[¶ 2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Dale V. Sandstrom
Daniel J. Crothers
Mary Muehlen Maring
Carol Ronning Kapsner