Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying this claim.

Next, appellant claimed that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his prior convictions were valid for use in adjudication as a habitual criminal, the district court improperly imposed the habitual criminal sentence for all of his convictions when only one enhancement was permitted, his convictions arose out of only one transaction, and the district court failed to make factual findings regarding his sentence. These claims fell outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to modify sentence. See id. Therefore, without considering the merits of these claims, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Pickering r. 7 J.

Parraguirre

Saitta

cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Nathaniel Lee Morris Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) I94Th