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 Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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 No. A-1-CA-42211 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAYMOND OLGUIN, Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE METROPOLITAN COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Jill M. Martinez, Metropolitan Court Judge Raúl Torrez, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Allison H. Jaramillo, Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM for Appellant MEMORANDUM OPINION DUFFY, Judge. {1} Following a bench trial in metropolitan court, Defendant appeals from his conviction for aggravated driving while under the influence. This Court issued a calendar notice proposing to summarily affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition that we have duly considered. Unpersuaded that the district court abused its discretion or otherwise committed reversible error, we affirm. {2} Defendant continues to maintain that the metropolitan court erred when it denied his motions to suppress evidence for lack of reasonable suspicion and lack of probable cause and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Defendant’s memorandum in opposition has not asserted any fact, law, or argument that persuades us that our notice of proposed disposition was erroneous. 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point out errors of law and fact,” and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. As a result, Defendant’s memorandum in opposition is not persuasive that this Court’s proposed summary disposition was in error and does not otherwise impact our proposed disposition of this case. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA- 036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”). Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we affirm. {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge WE CONCUR: SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge KATHERINE A. WRAY, Judge