discretion to impose consecutive sentences, see NRS 176.035(1). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion at sentencing.

Second, Gonzalez contends that the district court erred by granting his habeas petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

Gonzalez, however, is not an aggrieved party because the district court granted the relief he requested—a new sentencing hearing. See generally NRAP 3B; NRS 177.015. Moreover, any challenge to the district court's ruling on Gonzalez's habeas petition is independently appealable and not properly raised in an appeal from the amended judgment of conviction.

See NRS 34.575(1). 1 Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider this claim.

Accordingly, we ORDER the amended judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Parraguirre

Saitta

'As the State points out in its fast track response, it appears that the district court has not yet entered and filed a formal, written order granting Gonzalez's habeas petition.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A cera cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge Potter Law Offices Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A