said to charge the offense for which the defendant was convicted." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

NRS 205.463(1) provides, in relevant part, that a person who knowingly "[o]btains any personal identifying information of another person" and intentionally uses that information for any unlawful purpose is guilty of a felony. Here, the amended information alleged that VanWinkle "obtained" a debit card number and/or personal identification number ("PIN") belonging to another person and used the debit card and/or PIN or assisted his codefendant in using them at ARCO to purchase gasoline (count 1), and at the AM/PM convenience store to obtain currency or merchandise (count 2). The amended information made reference to the statutes under which VanWinkle was charged and alleged the time, place, and method or manner in which he committed the offenses. Thus, we conclude that the amended information plainly charges the offenses for which VanWinkle was convicted. See NRS 173.075(1); see Laney, 86 Nev. at 178, 466 P.2d at 669.

VanWinkle's sole argument is that the amended information is defective because it does not specify where or how he obtained the debit card number and PIN. He contends that because the evidence at the preliminary hearing showed only that he obtained the personal identifying information in the mail, the State should not have been able to argue at trial that he may have received it from his codefendant. We disagree and conclude that the amended information included the relevant facts and essential elements of the offense. The fact that the information did not specify how or where VanWinkle obtained the debit card number and PIN did not render it deficient or prevent VanWinkle from preparing his defense. Notably, the basis for the State's argument that VanWinkle may SUPREME COURT Of NEVADA (0) 1947A agibP have obtained the debit card number and PIN from his codefendant was VanWinkle's own statement to the police, which was admitted at trial but not at the preliminary hearing due to VanWinkle's objection. Thus, VanWinkle was aware of the two different theories as to how and where he obtained the personal identifying information. Accordingly, we conclude that the amended information was sufficient to support the judgment of conviction, and we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.'

Parraguirre

pa J.

Douglas Cherry

cc: Ninth Judicial District Court Dept. 2 Kristine L. Brown Attorney General/Carson City Douglas County District Attorney/Minden Douglas County Clerk

WanWinkle's fast track statement does not comply with the provisions of NRAP 3C(h)(1) and NRAP 32(a)(4) and (a)(5) because it does not have 1-inch margins on all four sides and it uses 12-point font instead of 14-point font as represented in the verification. We caution VanWinkle's counsel, Kristine L. Brown, that future failure to comply with formatting requirements when filing briefs with this court may result in the imposition of sanctions. NRAP 3C(n) NRAP 32(e).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A en