provided by the relevant statutes. Further, the sentence imposed is not so
unreasonably disproportionate to the gravity of the offenses as to shock
the conscience. See CuIverson v. State, 95 Nev. 433, 435, 596 P.2d 220,
221-22 (1979); see also Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000-01
(1991) (plurality opinion). We conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion at sentencing.
Second, Maxwell contends that the district court erred by
denying his motion to appoint alternate counsel to file a presentence
motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Other than referring to an unspecified
conflict, Maxwell provides no argument on appeal and fails to address the
district court's denial of his motion. Therefore, we need not address the
matter. See generally Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6
(1987). Nevertheless, our review of the record reveals that Maxwell failed
to provide an adequate basis for the appointment of alternate counsel and
therefore the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his
motion. See Thomas v. State, 94 Nev. 605, 607-08, 584 P.2d 674, 676
(1978); see also Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 337, 113 P.3d 836, 843
(2005) ("We review the district court's denial of a motion to substitute
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
D;EM80
counsel for an abuse of discretion."). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment ofonviction AFFIRMED. 1
Gibbons
J.
Douglas Saitta
cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge
Michael P. Printy
Nye County District Attorney
Attorney General/Carson City
Nye County Clerk
'Although we filed the fast track statement and appendix submitted
by Maxwell, they fail to comply with the Nevada Rules of Appellate
Procedure. Although the verification signed by Maxwell's counsel,
Michael Printy, indicates that the fast track statement complies with the
formatting requirements of NRAP 32(a)(4), the fast track statement is not
in compliance with the rule because it is not double-spaced. Additionally,
the appendix is not paginated sequentially and does not include an
alphabetical index. See NRAP 3C(e)(2)(C); NRAP 30(c). We caution Mr.
Printy that the future failure to comply with the rules when preparing
briefs and appendices or misrepresenting compliance with the rules in the
verification may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n);
NRAP 28.2(b); Smith v. Emery, 109 Nev. 737, 743, 856 P.2d 1386, 1390
(1993).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
11,71