Pough, Sr. v. Crank, Jr.

statement and the record on appeal, we conclude that, regardless of any conflicting evidence, the district court did not clearly err in finding that probable cause existed to grant the petition based on respondent's declaration stating under penalty of perjury that he had wrapped his arm around appellant's face and later noticed a bite mark and bleeding immediately after appellant was subdued. See Han,nam v. Brown, 114 Nev. 350, 358, 956 P.2d 794, 799 (1998) (reviewing the district court's finding of probable cause in a will contest action under a clearly erroneous standard); cf. Sheriff, Clark Cnty. v. Badillo, 95 Nev. 593, 595-95, 600 P.2d 221, 222 (1979) (recognizing, in the context of whether there was sufficient probable cause to find that an individual had committed a criminal offense, that a finding of probable cause "may be based on slight evidence," and that conflicting testimony will not undermine a finding of probable cause). Based on the above discussion, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'

Ableu tize ' J. Pickering

J. tunic J.

'Because respondent's declaration was sufficient to support the finding of probable cause, we conclude that our review of the transcript requested by appellant is unnecessary. Further, we have considered appellant's July 18, 2013, letter regarding the appeal statement, August 30, 2013, filing, September 3 and 23, 2013, memoranda to the court, March 10, 2014, communication regarding a petition for a writ of mandamus, and May 29, 2014, communication to this court, and we deny SUPREME COURT the relief sought by these documents. OF NEVADA

(0) I-947A

cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge Jerry Doran Pough, Sr. Eglet Wall Christiansen Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I947A