This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer- generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NO. A-1-CA-37768 JOSEPH MULDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Charles W. Brown, District Judge Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Santa Fe, NM Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender Albuquerque, NM for Appellant MEMORANDUM OPINION M. ZAMORA, Chief Judge. {1} Defendant appeals the district court’s affirmance of the metropolitan court’s decision denying his motion to suppress or, in the alternative, his request for an adverse inference instruction. This Court issued a notice of proposed disposition, proposing to affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered.

Unpersuaded, we affirm. {2} On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred by either denying an adverse inference for non-collected evidence or denying suppression of the officer’s testimony under State v. Ware, 1994-NMSC-091, ¶ 23, 118 N.M. 319, 881 P.2d 679, based on the stopping officer’s failure to record the entirety of his interaction with Defendant. [MIO 1] Our notice proposed to adopt the district court’s recitation of the facts, law, reasoning, and result. {3} In response, Defendant has not asserted any new facts, law, or argument persuading us that our adoption of the district court’s memorandum opinion, as laid out in our calendar notice, is incorrect. See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating 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point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. {4} Accordingly, we affirm. {5} IT IS SO ORDERED.

M. MONICA ZAMORA, Chief Judge WE CONCUR: JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge