imprisonment as required by NRS 34.724, See Coleman v. State, 130 Nev. 321 P.3d 863, 867 (2014). Therefore, because Adams did not meet the imprisonment requirement of NRS 34.724, he was not eligible for post- conviction habeas relief See id. For this reason, we affirm the decision of the district court to deny the petition. 2 Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3

C.J.

J.

Pickering

recit.is Parraguirre

2 Although the district court incorrectly addressed the procedural bars, we nevertheless affirm because the district court reached the correct result in denying the petition. See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970) (holding that a correct result will not be reversed simply because it is based on the wrong reason).

3 Adams's fast-track statement fails to comply with the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure because it does not contain 1-inch margins on all four sides, it is not double-spaced, and the footnotes are not in the same size font as the body of the brief See NRAP 32(a)(4)-(5). Counsel for Adams is 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 (0) 1947A 91S0 cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge Turco & Draskovich Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A )4111&947