Ramos (Robert) v. State

broad discretion of the district court, and will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse). Ramos also asserts that the district court abused its discretion by revoking his probation based on a condition "unilaterally imposed" by the Division rather than the district court. He specifically contends that the Division's imposition of the "no-contact order" without "guidance" from the district court did not comport with due process. We decline to address this contention because Ramos fails to support it with cogent argument or citation to authority. See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'

Gibbons

(1 , J Douglas Saitta

'Although we filed the fast track briefs submitted by the parties, they fail to comply with the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure. The fast track statement does not contain 1-inch margins on all four sides, see NRAP 3C(h)(1); NRAP 32(a)(4), or adequate citation to the appendix, see NRAP 3C(e)(1)(C). The fast track response is not double-spaced. See NRAP 3C(h)(1); NRAP 32(a)(4). Counsel for the parties are cautioned that the failure to comply with all applicable rules in the future may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n); Smith v. Emery, 109 Nev. 737, 743, 856 P.2d 1386, 1390 (1993).

cc: Hon. Valerie Adair, District Judge Clark County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A