argument at the hearing and submitted the matter on the briefs. The district court noted the "unusually thorough canvass" conducted by the hearing master at Chorzempa's arraignment, where he was properly advised and indicated that he understood his eligibility for probation and the district court's sentencing discretion. The district court also noted that Chorzempa was properly advised by the plea agreement memorandum. We conclude that Chorzempa failed to satisfy his burden and prove that his plea was invalid, see Molina v. State, 120 Nev. 185, 190, 87 P.3d 533, 537 (2004), and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion, Johnson v. State, 123 Nev. 139, 144, 159 P.3d 1096, 1098 (2007) ("This court will not reverse a district court's determination concerning the validity of a plea absent a clear abuse of discretion."). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 2

Gibbons

2 The fast track statement and reply fail to comply with NRAP 3C(h)(1) and NRAP 32(a)(4) because they do not contain 1-inch margins on all four sides and the footnote in the fast track statement is not "in the same size and typeface as the body of the brief," NRAP 32(a)(5). The fast track response does not comply with NRAP 3C(h)(1) and NRAP 32(a)(4) because the text is not double-spaced. Counsel for the parties are cautioned that the failure to comply with the briefing requirements in the future may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A cc: Hon. Jerome T. Tao, District Judge Herbert Sachs Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A