(2013) (quoting United States v. Ogbuehi, 18 F.3d 807, 813 (9th Cir. 1994)). d his Here, the evidence shows that appellant understoo mented, "I Miranda rights and after a period of questioning, he com t you will. [The spanked [the victim], hit him, whatever, call it wha Or should I just victim's family], they have the option to do what exactly. thereafter, the end it now, and I need to talk to a lawyer." Shortly t to speak to an detective reminded appellant that he had the righ ybe I need to talk attorney. After a brief discussion, appellant stated, "Ma help me out more." to a lawyer instead of you right now because they could the interview.

The detective asked appellant if he wished to continue asked appellant if After appellant continued to speak, the detective again responded that he he wished to continue the interview, to which appellant appellant and the did. Considering the context of the exchanges between an attorney were detective, we conclude that appellant's references to right to counsel. ambiguous and not an unequivocal invocation of his llant's motion to Therefore the district court did not err by denying appe 's statement was suppress. Moreover, any error in admitting appellant orting his guilt. See harmless considering the overwhelming evidence supp cluding that Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 295-96 (1991) (con admission of a statement obtained in violation of Mira nda is subject to harmless-error review). ting Appellant next argues that the district court erred by rejec nse's theory of the several defense instructions that constituted the defe re to instruct case. In this, he asserts that the district court's desi is "contrary to this "neutrally" and avoid "advocacy-themed" instructions instructions." Court's case law regarding defense theory of the case SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A , he does Although appellant identifies the proffered instructions at issue s was not sufficiently explain why the denial of his proposed instruction legal erroneous in light of the other instructions given and applicable conclude authority or how any error prejudiced him. Consequently, we 98; Rhyne v. that no relief is• warranted in this regard. See NRS 178.5 State, 118 Nev. 1, 13, 38 P.3d 163, 171 (2002).

Having considered appellant's arguments and concluded that no relief is warranted, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

- T °AA J.

Parraguirre

J.

Douglas

cc: Hon. David A. Hardy, District Judge Washoe County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1417A 4IDTa