This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 34,115 4 MICHAEL J. BALTES, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DE BACA COUNTY 7 Albert Mitchell, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Michael J. Baltes 12 Fort Sumner, NM 13 Pro Se Appellant 14 MEMORANDUM OPINION 15 VIGIL, Chief Judge. 16
{1} Defendant, a self-represented litigant, seek s to appeal from the district court’s 17 order denying his de novo appeal and his mo tions. We issued a notice of proposed 182 summary disposition, proposing to dismiss for the failure to file a timely notice of 1 appeal in the proper tribunal. Defendant has responded to our notice with a 2 memorandum in opposition and numerous attachments. We have considered 3 Defendant’s response, and we remain unpers uaded that Defendant filed an appropriate 4 notice of appeal in the appropriate tribunal with sufficient compliance with our rules 5 to trigger the proper exercise of our appe llate jurisdiction. We, therefore, dismiss 6 Defendant’s appeal. 7
{2} In our notice, we informed Defendant that to properly invoke this Court’s 8 jurisdiction, a party must comply with th e appellate rules governing the time and place 9 in which to file the notice of appeal. See Govich v. N. Am. Sys., Inc. , 1991-NMSC-061, 10 ¶ 12, 112 N.M. 226, 814 P.2d 94; see also Trujillo v. Serrano , 1994-NMSC-024, ¶ 14, 11 117 N.M. 273, 871 P.2d 369 (reaffirming that th e timely filing of a notice of appeal 12 is a mandatory precondition to our exercise of jurisdiction to hear an appeal). Rule 12- 13 201(A)(2) NMRA requires the ap pellant to file a notice of appeal with the district 14 court clerk within thirty days of the distri ct court’s entry of its final judgment. Our 15 appellate courts have held that filing the notice of app eal with the Clerk of the Court 16 of Appeals rather than the district court clerk does not substantially comply with Rule 17 12-201(A)(2), and it is not a mere technical defect. See Lowe v. Bloom , 18 1990-NMSC-069, ¶¶ 4-6, 110 N.M. 555, 798 P.2d 156. 193 {3} We observed that the district court’s order denying his de novo appeal and his 1 motions was filed on September 16, 2014. [RP 67] We further stated that our Court 2 file indicates that Defendant filed a notice of appeal in this Court on October 14, 2014. 3 [Ct. App. File - red clip] Th ere was no indication to us th at Defendant filed the notice 4 of appeal in the district court. 5
{4} In response to our notice, Defendant now maintains that he filed notice of 6 appeal in district court on September 26, 2014, and that on October 6, 2014, he 7 “verified” that all parties would be pres ent so that the “papers could and would be 8 filed accordingly.” [MIO unnumbered 2] It is not clear whether Defendant also 9 represents that he filed the notice of appeal from the district court’s order on 10 September 26th and October 6th. Defendant’s informal docketing statement indicated 11 that he filed the notice of appeal on October 6th, but there is no notice of appeal file12 stamped on that date that appears in the reco rd. [Ct. App. file - green clip] As we have 13 stated, the notice of appeal fro m the district court’s order tothis Court was filed in this 14 Court on October 14th, and was never filed in district court. [Ct. App. file - red clip] 15
{5} The record proper contains a notice of appeal filed on September 26, 2014, [RP 16 68] but it was not appealing from the district court’s order to this Court, as was the 17 notice of appeal filed only in this Court. [C ompare RP 63 with Ct. App. file - red clip] 18 The notice of appeal filed on September 26, 2014, in district court by its terms appeals 19 an unnamed decision of the magistrate court to the district court. [RP 68] As we 204indicated in our summary calendar notice, we may accept a timely filed, but non1 conforming document, that wa s filed in the appropriate tribunal as a timely filed 2 notice of appeal, where the document meet s the content requirements for a notice of 3 appeal. See Wakeland v. N.M. Dep’t of Workforce Solutions , 2012-NMCA-021, ¶¶ 7, 4 16, 18-20, 274 P.3d 766 (explaining the time requirements for a notice of appeal and 5 a docketing statement, the purposes th ey serve, and when we may accept non6 conforming documents that were timely filed in the correct tribunalas serving the 7 purposes that would accommodate hearing an appeal on its merits). As in Wakeland, 8 this situation normally arises where weaccept a docketing statement filed in the 9 district court within the time for filing a notice of appeal, as a timely filed notice of 10 appeal, because a docketing statement would meet the basic intent requirements for 11 a notice of appeal. See id. ¶ 7 (“New Mexico courts have not been stringent about the 12 form and content requirement s of documents filed in an effort to seek appellate 13 review, so long as the information provided in the non-conforming document is 14 adequate to convey the basic intent of the party filing the document.”). 15
{6} Those basic intent requirements for a noti ce of appeal include the identification 16 of the court to which the appeal is taken and the order from which the appellant seeks 17 to appeal. See Marquez v. Gomez , 1990-NMSC-101, ¶ 5, 111 N.M. 14, 801 P.2d 84; 18 see also Rule 12-202(B)(3) and (C) NMRA. Neitherof these basic intent requirements 19 was met by the notice of appeal filed in di strict court on September 26, 2014. Indeed, 205 this Court did not recognize the notice of app eal as showing an intent to appeal from 1 district court to this Court. As we stated , the notice of appeal states that Defendant 2 sought an appeal in district court from anunnamed decision of the magistrate court. 3 [RP 68] We note that a contrary intent cannot be clearly inferred from the record, 4 given that Defendant did not attach a copy of the district court decision from which 5 he seeks to appeal. And moreover, the recordcontains at least three other notices of 6 appeal from an unnamed decision of the magistrate court to the district court [RP 1, 7 5, 49, 60] that are identical to the noti ce of appeal of September 26, 2014, [RP 68] 8 except for the date, and wereintended to effectuate an appeal from the magistrate 9 court to the district court. [RP 1, 5, 49, 60] Thus, we are not persuaded that the mere 10 timing of Defendant’s fourth notice of appeal from an unname d magistrate court 11 decision provides any notice of an intent to appeal from the district court to the Court 12 of Appeals, as required by our rules and case law permitting leniency for non13 conforming documents. 14
{7} We note that Defendant expressed anunderstanding in his response to our 15 notice that this Court provides allotments, extensions, and leeway to self-represented 16 litigants. [MIO unnumbered 2] This Court will try to interpret the arguments made by 17 self-represented litigants to the best of our ability, explain more appropriate courses 18 of action, and we are lenient with all litigants’ non-conforming documents to 19 accommodate appeals where time and place requirements are met and where basic 206 intent requirements are shown. As we stated in our notice, however, self-represented 1 litigants must comply with the rules and orders of the court and will not be treated 2 differently than litigants with counsel. See Bruce v. Lester , 1999-NMCA-051, ¶ 4, 127 3 N.M. 301, 980 P.2d 84. 4
{8} For the reasons stated above and in our notice, we dismiss Defendant’s appeal 5 for the failure to file a timely notice of appeal in district court that shows his basic 6 intent to appeal from a decision of the district court to this Court. 7
{9} IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

__________________________________ 9 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 10 WE CONCUR: 11

_________________________________ 12 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 13

_________________________________ 14 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 15