STATE V. GOMEZ This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARIO GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A-1-CA-36896 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO February 19, 2019

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY, Fernando R. Macias, District Judge COUNSEL Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, Lauren J. Wolongevicz, Assistant Attorney General, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee L. Helen Bennett, P.C., L. Helen Bennett, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant JUDGES J. MILES HANISEE, Judge. WE CONCUR: LINDA M. VANZI, Judge, JULIE J.

VARGAS, Judge AUTHOR: J. MILES HANISEE MEMORANDUM OPINION HANISEE, Judge. {1} Defendant appeals following the district court entering judgment against him that included a requirement that Defendant pay restitution to the Metro Narcotics Agency Contingency Fund. On appeal, Defendant contends that the district court’s requirement that Defendant pay restitution was not a proper legal remedy in this case and/or, “even if restitution is found to be proper, [he] should not be required to pay restitution on dismissed conspiracy counts.” [DS 3] This Court issued a second calendar notice proposing to conclude that, because Defendant was only convicted on one count of trafficking and the remaining two conspiracy to commit trafficking charges were dismissed, only $150 of restitution was proper. {2} In response, the State has filed a notice indicating that it will not file a memorandum in opposition to this Court’s second calendar notice, and Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition continuing to argue that the Metro Narcotics Agency cannot be a “victim” for the purpose of restitution. As Defendant makes no new arguments regarding restitution, see State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (providing that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superceded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374, we proceed with summary affirmance, in part, and summary reversal, in part. {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

J. MILES HANISEE, Judge WE CONCUR: LINDA M. VANZI, Judge JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge