diversion despite his prior participation in the program, the determination to admit him to the program a second time was within the district court's discretion. See NRS 458.320(2). And Carrillo points to no authority prohibiting the district court from considering his prior participation.

Second, Carrillo contends that the district court erred by questioning his assertion that he believed the residence was unoccupied and by relying on the Division of Parole and Probation's assessment that this assertion was untruthful. Carrillo fails to demonstrate that the district court erred in assessing his credibility, see Howard v. State, 106 Nev. 713, 722, 800 P.2d 175, 180 (1991), abrogation recognized on other grounds by Harte v. State, 116 Nev. 1054, 1072 n.6, 13 P.3d 420, 432 n.6 (2000), and the record does not demonstrate that the district court relied solely on the Division's assertion. In addition, Carrillo's sentence is within the parameters provided by the relevant statute. See MRS 205.060(2).

Therefore, Carrillo fails to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion, and we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.'

' J.

Hardesty

Pst-Ot Parraguirre

'The fast track response does not comply with NRAP 3C(h)(1) and NRAP 32(a)(4) because it does not have 1-inch margins on all four sides.

We caution the State that future failure to comply with formatting requirements when filing briefs with this court may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (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 (0) 1947A