OPINION

This appeal is without merit. Appellant claims that the wording of NRS 205.130(1), which states that one who passes checks with no account or insufficient funds “shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, unless such instrument, or a series of such instruments passed in the state during a period of 90 days, is in the amount of $100 or more, in which case such person shall be guilty of a felony. . . .”, is unconstitutionally vague.

It is appellant’s position that the statute fails to clearly indicate whether felony liability is imposed if one check is over $100 or when multiple checks totaled together exceed $100.

We find that men of ordinary intelligence would read this statute as imposing felony liability in either case. We therefore hold that NRS 205.130(1) is not vague and unconstitutional.

Affirmed.