This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 7 ALICE ARELLANO, 8 Petitioner-Appellee, 9

v. NO. 29,786 10 TOBY ARSENIO VELARDE, 11 Respondent-Appellant. 12

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TAOS COUNTY 13 Sam B. Sanchez, District Judge 14 New Mexico Legal Aid, Inc. 15 Maija West 16 Taos, NM 17 for Appellee 18 William A. 

###  ́ Esperance 19 Albuquerque, NM 20 for Appellant 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION 22 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. 232 Defendant appeals a finding that he violat ed the terms of an order of protection 1 and ordering him jailed for ninety days. Inour notice, we proposed to affirm the 2 district court order. Plaintiff has res ponded with support for our proposal. Defendant 3 has responded by filing an amended docketing statement and a motion to dismiss the 4 appeal as moot. We affirm. 5 Rule 12-210(D) NMRA, states that after the notice of proposed summary 6 disposition is served, counsel may “file a memorandum setting forth reasons why the 7 proposed disposition should or should not bemade and why the case should or should 8 not be assigned to the summary calendar.” However, the party is limited to arguing 9 issues raised in the docketing statement. The docketing statement may be amended 10 for good cause shown with the permission of this Court. Rule 12-210 (D)(3). 11 Defendant filed no memorandum in response to the summary calendar notice. Under 12 such circumstances, we issue an opinion cons istent with the reasoning in the calendar 13 notice. See Frick v. Veazey , 116 N.M. 246, 247, 861 P.2d 287, 288 (Ct. App. 1993) 14 (stating that failure to file memorandum in opposition constitutes acceptance of the 15 disposition proposed). 16 We cannot construe Defendant’s ame nded docketing statement as a response 17 to the calendar notice, even though our no tice pointed out that the first docketing 183 statement was lacking in citation to the facts of the case. The amended docketing 1 statement does not address the proposals in the calendar notice. Further, Defendant 2 has filed no motion to amend the docketing statement as required by State v. Rael , 100 3 N.M. 193, 197, 668 P.2d 309, 313 (C t. App. 1983). Therefore, we decline to consider 4 the amended docketing statement. 5 Finally, Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal as moot as he 6 contends that he has served the sentence of the court. Dismissal upon motion of the 7 appellant, without concurren ce by appellee, is completely discretionary with this 8 Court. Rule 12-401(B) NMRA. Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to 9 dismiss the appeal. Simply because Defe ndant has served his sentence does not mean 10 that the appeal is moot. See State v. Jose S. , 2005-NMCA-094, ¶ 7, 138 N.M. 44, 116 11 P.3d 115 (addressing issues even though sentence had been served). 12 Therefore, for the reasons stated in the calendar notice, we affirm. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED

. 14 15 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 16 WE CONCUR: 17

18 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 194 1 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 2