Pough, Sr. v. Crank, Jr. ( 2014 )

 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