*1 Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices.

ORDER

After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s order, dated December 7, 2020, denying the appellant’s sixth motion for postconviction relief. The appellant did not plead with particularity new evidence of actual innocence or that a new, retroactive rule of constitutional law rendered his convictions invalid. ^[1] Nor did he assert any claim that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction. ^[2] *2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.

Chief Justice 2

[1] Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2).

[2] Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5).