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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 fr om 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 ex rel. 2 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT 3 and NANCY GARCIA, 4 Petitioners-Appellees, 5

v. NO. 33,941 6 ANTHONY GARCIA, 7 Respondent-Appellant. 8 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 9 Alisa A. Hadfield, District Judge 10 New Mexico Human Services Department 11 Susan Sullivan, Special Assistant Attorney General 12 Albuquerque, NM 13 for Appellee 14 Nancy Garcia 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 Pro Se Appellee 17 Anthony Garcia 18 Los Lunas, NM 19 Pro Se Appellant 202 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 VANZI, Judge. 2 {1} Respondent appeals from the district c ourt’s adoption of the hearing officer 3 report requiring Respondent to pay $258 per month for child support. [DS 1; RP 41- 4 43, 62] The district court entered its order on May 14, 2014. [RP 62] Respondent filed 5 his notice of appeal with the district c ourt on June 18, 2014. [R P 63] Because a notice 6 of appeal must be filed “within thirty ( 30) days after the judgment or order appealed 7 from is filed in the district court clerk’s office,” Rule 12-201(A)(2) NMRA, and the 8 timely filing of a notice of appeal is a mandatory precondition to our exercise of 9 jurisdiction, see Govich v. N. Am. Sys., Inc ., 1991-NMSC-061, ¶ 12, 112 N.M. 226, 10 814 P.2d 94, this Court issued a calendar notice proposing to dismiss Respondent’s 11 appeal as untimely. 12 {2} Respondent has filed a memorandum in opposition to this Court’s proposed 13 dismissal. Respondent, however, does not make any argument that would permit this 14 Court to exercise our discretion to hear his untimely appeal. See Romero v. Pueblo of 15 Sandia , 2003-NMCA-137, ¶ 6, 134 N.M. 553, 80 P.3d 490 (recognizing that this 16 Court will not ordinarily entertain an appealin the absence of a timely notice, but that 173 unusual circumstances create an exception that “warrants permitting an untimely 1 appeal” (alteration, internal quotati on marks, and citation omitted)); Trujillo v. 2 Serrano , 1994-NMSC-024, ¶ 19, 117 N.M. 273, 871 P.2d 369 (“Only the most 3 unusual circumstances beyond the control of th e parties—such as error on the part of 4 the court—will warrant overlooking procedural defects.”). Instead, in his 5 memorandum in opposition, Respondent conti nues to argue the merits of the 6 underlying action. However, given the lack of timely notice and lack of unusual 7 circumstances that warrant overlooking Res pondent’s untimely notice, we decline to 8 exercise jurisdiction to consider the merits of Respondent’s appeal. 9 {3} For the reasons stated above, and in th is Court’s notice of proposed disposition, 10 we dismiss Respondent’s appeal. 11 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

__________________________________ 13 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 14 WE CONCUR: 15

_________________________________ 16 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge 17

_________________________________ 18 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 19