Sparacino (Timothy) v. State

 Sparacino failed to object to do not rise to the level of plain error. Before
imposing sentence, the district court disclaimed reliance upon all
statements which fell outside the scope of NRS 176.015(3). See Buschauer,
106 Nev. at 893, 804 P.2d at 1048. For these reasons, Sparacino fails to
demonstrate that the district court violated his right to due process, see id.
at 893-94, 804 P.2d at 1048, or abused its discretion at sentencing, see
Randell, 109 Nev. at 8, 846 P.2d at 280; Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545
P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976) (a district court abuses its discretion if it bases its
sentencing determination only upon impalpable or highly suspect
evidence). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
kC)i J.
Pickering
J.
Parraguirre
Saitta
cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge
Attorney General/Carson City
Carson City District Attorney
State Public Defender
Carson City Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
kO) 1917A e