(declining to find reversible error where defense counsel invited the State's argument).

We also note that the judgment of conviction contains a clerical error. The State conceded below that it presented insufficient evidence to support the trafficking charge relating to count V in the information. The jury acquitted Haro of count V, but the judgment of conviction indicates that Haro was found guilty, and Haro was sentenced on the count. Following this court's issuance of its remittitur, the district court shall enter a corrected judgment of conviction. See NRS 176.565 (providing that clerical errors in judgments may be corrected at any time).

Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.

bcot J.

Parraguirre

J.

Douglas

CHERRY, J., concurring: I conclude that the prosecutor's statement was improper. See Williams v. State, 103 Nev. 106, 110, 734 P.2d 700, 703 (1987). However, I agree that Haro is not entitled to relief under the circumstances.

J.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) I.947A cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 20 Sanft Law, P.C.

Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A e