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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3 v. No. 33,753 4 ARTURO ACOSTA, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY 7 Steven L. Bell, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 12 J.K. Theodosia Johnson, Assi stant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 FRY, Judge. 17

{1} Defendant has appealed from numer ous convictions, including aggravated 18 DWI, reckless driving, leaving the scen e of an accident, resisting evading or 19 obstructing an officer, and failing to gi ve immediate notice of an accident. We 202 previously issued a notice of proposed su mmary disposition in which we proposed to 1 affirm. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition. Af ter due consideration, we 2 remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm. 3 Because the pertinent background information and applicable principles were 4 previously set out in the notice of proposed summary disposition, we will avoid 5 unnecessary repetition here, and instead focus on the content of the memorandum in 6 opposition. 7 By his first and third issues Defendant renews his challenge to the sufficiency 8 of the evidence to support his convictions. [MIO 3-5, 7-10] As we previously 9 observed, the State presented ample eviden tiary support for the convictions. In his 10 memorandum in opposition we understand Defe ndant to contend that the State’s 11 showing was not sufficiently compelling. However, we cannot re-weigh the evidence 12 on appeal. See generally State v. Schaff , 2013-NMCA-082, ¶ 11, 308 P.3d 160 (“The 13 question for us on appeal is whether the district court’s decision is supported by 14 substantial evidence, not whether the district court could have reached a different 15 conclusion.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). We are 16 similarly unpersuaded by Defendant’s suggestion that his condition, “[m]erely being 17 a difficult drunk,” [MIO 4] is insufficient to support the conviction for resisting, 18 evading, or obstructing an officer. This characterization of th e evidence runs afoul 193 of our standard of review. The district c ourt’s findings reflect that the State presented 1 evidence of a struggle: two officers e xperienced difficulty placing Defendant in 2 handcuffs because Defendant was “resisti ng” their efforts, and Defendant was 3 ultimately handcuffed only after a third officer provided assistance. [RP 265-66] 4 Although Defendant suggests thathe was merely “drunk and unable to maintain his 5 balance,” [MIO 4] the district court was at liberty to find otherwise. See generally 6 State v. Jason L. , 2000-NMSC-018, ¶ 10, 129 N.M. 119, 2 P.3d 856 (“Fact[]finding 7 frequently involves selecting wh ich inferences to draw.” (internal quotation marks and 8 citation omitted)). To the extent that Defe ndant invites this Court to draw different 9 inferences from the evidence, we must decline the invitation. See generally State v. 10 Estrada , 2001-NMCA-034, ¶ 41, 130 N.M. 358, 24 P.3d 793 (“[A]s a reviewing 11 court, we do not reweigh the evidence or attempt to draw altern ative inferences from 12 the evidence.”). 13 Finally, Defendant renews his challengeto authenticity of the documentary 14 evidence presented by the State to estab lish his prior DWI convictions. [MIO 5-7] 15 However, the certified copies of judgments and sentences that were presented by the 16 State were properly authenticated, by vi rtue of the certifications. [MIO 6] See 17 generallyRule 11-902(4) NMRA; Rule 11- 1005 NMRA. Although Defendant takes 18 issue with the date upon which one of the documents was allegedl y filed and suggests 194 that availability of another document is in consistent with the limited recordkeeping 1 practices of the magistrate court, [MIO 6] we conclude that the district court did not 2 abuse its discretion in rejecting these sugge stions of irregularity and determining that 3 the documents were admissible. See generally State v. Mora , 1997-NMSC-060, ¶ 53, 4 124 N.M. 346, 950 P.2d 789 (reviewing a district court’s determination relative to the 5 authentication of evidence for abuse of discretion), abrogation on other grounds 6 recognized by Kersey v. Hatch , 2010-NMSC-020, ¶ 17, 148 N.M. 381, 237 P.3d 683. 7 Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary 8 disposition and above, we affirm. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10

11 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 12 WE CONCUR: 13

14 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge 15

16 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 17