plea under the terms of that agreement. Instead, a new plea agreement

was filed on November 5, 2012, and Garza entered his plea pursuant to

that agreement on the same day. Garza includes only the September 7,

2012, agreement in the appendix.

Garza next contends that the district court abused its

discretion by declining to suspend his prison term of 28 to 70 months and

place him on probation. He also asserts that the minimum sentence

should be 13 months, in accordance with the Division of Parole and

Probation's sentence recommendation selection scale. We disagree.

Garza's sentence is within the statutory limits, see NRS

484B.550(3)(b), and it is within the district court's discretion to deny

probation, NRS 176A.100(1)(c), or impose a sentence different from that

recommended by the Division, Collins v. State, 88 Nev. 168, 171, 494 P.2d 956, 957 (1972). To the extent Garza contends that the district court

abused its discretion by relying on a probation probability success sheet

"obviously completed incorrectly" by the Division, we disagree. Garza fails

to demonstrate that the Division incorrectly filled out the sheet.

Moreover, the record does not reflect that the district court relied solely on

the sheet when imposing Garza's sentence. See Denson v. State, 112 Nev. 489, 492, 915 P.2d 284, 286 (1996) (this court will reverse a sentence if it SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA

2 (0) 1947A is based solely on highly suspect and impalpable evidence). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 1

Gibbons

Ahrs..s J. Douglas cc: Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge

Humboldt County Public Defender

Attorney General/Carson City

Humboldt County District Attorney

Humboldt County Clerk

lAlthough we filed the fast track briefs submitted by the parties, they 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 footnotes in the fast track statement are not in the same size and typeface as the brief. See NRAP 3C(h)(1); NRAP 32(a)(4)-(5). We caution counsel for the parties that future failure to comply with the rules of this court may result in the imposition of sanctions. NRAP 3C(n).

3