Here, the challenged affidavit indicates that the person who analyzed petitioner's blood alcohol content is a senior forensic specialist employed by the Carson City Sheriffs Office crime laboratory and possesses professional and academic training that qualifies him to perform analyses to determine the presence of alcohol in the blood. Accordingly, the forensic specialist met the statutory definition of chemist and the affidavit was admissible in the preliminary hearing. Petitioner's reliance on Cramer v. State, DMV is misplaced as that case concerned whether the challenged affidavit was inadmissible because the scientist who had performed the blood alcohol test had not been qualified as an expert in a court of record. 126 Nev. , 240 P.3d 8 (2010). We specifically declined to address the issue of whether a chemist who submits an affidavit pursuant to NRS 50.320 must be qualified as an expert because that issue was not raised on appeal, and we did not comment on the 2009 amendment to NRS 50.320 that defined "chemist." Id at n.3, 240 P.3d at 11 n.3; see 2009 Nev. Stat., ch. 16, § 1, at 32. Because petitioner failed to demonstrate that the district court manifestly abused its discretion by denying his pretrial habeas petition, see NRS 34.160; State v. Dist. Ct. (Armstrong), 127 Nev. , 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining manifest abuse of discretion), we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Gibbons

—00"11 , J. Douglas

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge State Public Defender/Carson City Attorney General/Carson City Carson City District Attorney Carson City Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A

_rk