provided by the relevant statutes. Further, the sentence imposed is not so

unreasonably disproportionate to the gravity of the offenses as to shock

the conscience. See CuIverson v. State, 95 Nev. 433, 435, 596 P.2d 220, 221-22 (1979); see also Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000-01

(1991) (plurality opinion). We conclude that the district court did not

abuse its discretion at sentencing.

Second, Maxwell contends that the district court erred by

denying his motion to appoint alternate counsel to file a presentence

motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Other than referring to an unspecified

conflict, Maxwell provides no argument on appeal and fails to address the

district court's denial of his motion. Therefore, we need not address the

matter. See generally Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6

(1987). Nevertheless, our review of the record reveals that Maxwell failed

to provide an adequate basis for the appointment of alternate counsel and

therefore the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his

motion. See Thomas v. State, 94 Nev. 605, 607-08, 584 P.2d 674, 676

(1978); see also Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 337, 113 P.3d 836, 843

(2005) ("We review the district court's denial of a motion to substitute

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

D;EM80 counsel for an abuse of discretion."). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment ofonviction AFFIRMED. 1

Gibbons

J. Douglas Saitta

cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge Michael P. Printy Nye County District Attorney Attorney General/Carson City Nye County Clerk

'Although we filed the fast track statement and appendix submitted by Maxwell, they fail to comply with the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure. Although the verification signed by Maxwell's counsel, Michael Printy, indicates that the fast track statement complies with the formatting requirements of NRAP 32(a)(4), the fast track statement is not in compliance with the rule because it is not double-spaced. Additionally, the appendix is not paginated sequentially and does not include an alphabetical index. See NRAP 3C(e)(2)(C); NRAP 30(c). We caution Mr. Printy that the future failure to comply with the rules when preparing briefs and appendices or misrepresenting compliance with the rules in the verification may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n); NRAP 28.2(b); Smith v. Emery, 109 Nev. 737, 743, 856 P.2d 1386, 1390 (1993).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

3 (0) 1947A

11,71