facilitated the district court in sentencing him predicated on an incorrect understanding of law. Specifically, he contends that the district court's reliance on the prosecutor's mistake of law worked to his extreme detriment because he would have been eligible for parole after 6 years if the sentence agreed upon in the plea agreement had been imposed. While the prosecutor's comments concerning the application of release credits was erroneous, see NRS 202.285(1)(b) (discharging a firearm at or into a structure); NRS 202.287(1)(b) (discharging a firearm out of a motor vehicle); NRS 205.010 (first-degree arson); NRS 209.4465(7), (8) (credits on terms of imprisonment), we conclude that the prosecutor's comments did not amount to a breach of the plea agreement where she merely responded to a query by the district court, see United States v. Block, 660 F.2d 1086, 1091 (5th Cir. 1981) ("Efforts by the Government to provide relevant factual information or to correct misstatements are not tantamount to taking a position on the sentence and will not violate the plea agreement"), and she expressly argued in favor of a 6-year minimum sentence in accordance with the plea agreement. Moreover, the record does not show that the incorrect information influenced the district court's sentencing decision. In sentencing appellant, the district court noted that "it's because of the toxic nature of this bizarre criminal behavior, that I have concluded that you do not fall within the minimum set forth in our statute"; the district court further explained, "I don't believe that the maximum is appropriate . . . because of the lack of history, and the probable nature of mental-health deficits." From these comments, the district court's decision appears to have been based on the nature of the offenses and the defendant's character and unrelated to release credits.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A Having considered appellant's arguments and concluded that no relief is warranted, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.'

,J. Hardesty

cc: Hon. David A. Hardy, District Judge Dennis A. Cameron Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

'Despite counsel's verification that the fast track statement complies with the formatting requirements of NRAP 32(a)(4), the fast track statement does not comply because it is not double-spaced. See NRAP 3C(h)(1). We caution appellant's counsel that future failure to comply with the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure when filing briefs with this court may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n); NRAP 28.2(b).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A •1