Young (Gregory) v. State ( 2013 )

 This evidence provides slight to marginal evidence, Sheriff v.
Shade, 109 Nev. 826, 828, 858 P.2d 840, 841 (1993), that Young had
constructive possession of the vehicle, see Palmer v. State, 112 Nev. 763,
768-69, 920 P.2d 112, 115 (1996) (discussing constructive possession); cf.
Baker v. State, 93 Nev. 11, 558 P.2d 629 (1977) (defendant's presence in a
vehicle containing stolen property combined with surrounding
circumstances gave rise to reasonable inference that he probably
possessed the stolen property), and thus committed the charged offense,
see NRS 205.273(1)(b). Accordingly, we conclude that Young fails to
demonstrate that the district court erred by denying his petition, see
Shade, 109 Nev. at 828, 858 P.2d at 841, and we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 2
J.
Cherry
2Although we filed the fast track statement and appendix submitted
by Young, they fail to comply with the Nevada Rules of Appellate
Procedure. Young's fast track statement refers to matters in the record
without specific citation to the appendix, see NRAP 3C(e)(1)(C), and the
appendix does not contain all required documents, see NRAP 3C(e)(2)(C)
and 30(b). Additionally, despite this court's issuance of a notice of
deficient certificate of compliance, counsel failed to file a certificate of
compliance in compliance with NRAP 3C(h)(3). Counsel for Young,
Gemma Greene Waldron, is cautioned that the failure to comply with all
applicable rules and directives of this court 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).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
.1 " 1 r
cc: Hon. Janet J. Berry, District Judge
Law Office of Gemma Greene Waldron, PLLC
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) I 947A •
3
INZEB2INEEENEENWZMI - .47,2774W .67 '41),..3MMatitiANCSZ-