We have consistently afforded the district court wide

discretion in its sentencing decision, see, e.g., Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987), and will refrain from interfering with the

sentence imposed by the district court "[s] o long as the record does not

demonstrate prejudice resulting from consideration of information or

accusations founded on facts supported only by impalpable or highly

suspect evidence," Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161

(1976). Regardless of its severity, a sentence that is "within the statutory

limits is not 'cruel and unusual punishment unless the statute fixing

punishment is unconstitutional or the sentence is so unreasonably

disproportionate to the offense as to shock the conscience." Blume v. State,

112 Nev. 472, 475, 915 P.2d 282, 284 (1996) (quoting Culverson 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) (explaining

that the Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality

between crime and sentence; it forbids only an extreme sentence that is

grossly disproportionate).

We conclude that Zaragoza-Romero's contentions lack merit.

His sentence of 60-156 months imprisonment falls within statutory

parameters, see NRS 453.3385(2), and he does not allege that the statute

fixing punishment is unconstitutional. The prosecutor's statement did not

constitute impalpable or highly suspect evidence, and Zaragoza-Romero's

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

WitiMMENEMIERREMEMMIRMESENSEXTVIMP riCIEN ,115N;z4WW-11-1 sentence is not so grossly disproportionate to the crime as to constitute

cruel and unusual punishment. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 2

J. Douglas

J. Saitta

cc: Hon. Alvin R. Kacin, District Judge Elko County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Elko County District Attorney Elko County Clerk

2Although we filed the fast track statement and response, these documents fail to comply with the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure. Neither brief contains margins of at least 1-inch on all four sides, and the fast track response is not double-spaced and the footnote text is not the same size as the body of the text. See NRAP 3C(h)(1); NRAP 32(a)(4), (5). We caution counsel for both parties that future failure to comply with the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A .64.w.

I NNW EBEIZENKOMMEMEEMillIBEEI