This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 32,010 4 LAZARO MOLINA, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DONA ANA COUNTY 7 Fernando R. Macias, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Russell Dean Clark, LLC 12 Russell Dean Clark 13 Las Cruces, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 SUTIN, Judge. 172 Defendant Lazaro Molina appeals from his convictions fo r fraud (over $20,000) 1 and Medicaid fraud (false/excessive claims). [RP 373] We issued a calendar notice 2 proposing to summarily affirm. Defendantfiled a motion to amend the docketing 3 statement and memorandum in opposition to proposed summary affirmance. We deny 4 Defendant’s motion to amend and affirm Defendant’s convictions. 5 A. Memorandum in Opposition 6 In his docketing statement, Defendant argued his convictions should be 7 reversed because: (1) the district court erred in admitting intoevidence two exhibits 8 pursuant to the business records excepti on to the hearsay rule, (2) there was 9 insufficient evidence to support his convic tions, and (3) the count alleging Medicaid 10 fraud (false/excessive claims) should have been dismissed on double jeopardy 11 grounds. Our calendar notice proposed to affirm on all three issues. 12 In his memorandum in opposition, Defe ndant does not contest our proposed 13 affirmance on sufficiency of the evidence or double jeopardy grounds. By not 14 contesting our proposed disposition, De fendant has abandoned these issues. See 15 Taylor v. Van Winkle’s IGA Farmer’s Mkt ., 1996-NMCA-111, ¶ 5, 122 N.M. 486, 927 16 P.2d 41 (recognizing that issues raised in a docketing statement, but not contested in 17 a memorandum in opposition, are abandoned). 183 In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to argue that the district 1 court erred in admitting into evidence two exhibits pursuant to the business records 2 exception to the hearsay rule. [MIO 8] As described by Defendant, these exhibits 3 were collections of purported ledgers and checks that the State claimed showed how 4 Defendant and Arcilia Holguin divided funds received as a result of alleged improper 5 billing. [MIO 5] Inour calendar notice, we proposed to conclude that the district 6 court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged exhibits, noting we have 7 broadly interpreted the “other qualified witness” language c ontained in Rule 11- 8 803(F) NMRA (2007) (amended 2012). Even if th e district court abused its discretion 9 in admitting the exhibits, we proposed to affirm on the grounds that any error was 10 harmless under State v. Tollardo , 2012-NMSC-008, ¶¶ 25-44, 275 P.3d 110. We 11 explained that on the record before us we did not perceive a reasonable probability 12 that the admission of the challenge d exhibits affected the verdict. 13 In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant maintains the district court erred 14 in admitting the exhibits because the te stifying witness, Santiago Baca, was not an 15 “other qualified witness” within the meaning of Rule 11-803(F). [MIO 12-13] 16 Defendant does not, however, address ourproposed affirmance on harmless error 17 grounds. We have carefully re viewed the record and continue to believe that even if 18 the district court abused its discretion in admitting the exhibits, the error was harmless. 194 There is no indication that Defendant disputed that he received funds from the alleged 1 improper billing; instead, he disputed hi s role and argued heshould not be held 2 responsible for any improper billing. [MIO 4-5] In addition, as discussed in the 3 calendar notice, Defendant was able to que stion Baca in such a way as to challenge 4 the weight the jury should afford to the e xhibits. On cross-examination, Baca testified 5 that he did not know who prepared the exhibits and did not know whether the exhibits 6 were accurate. [DS 10] In considering whether an error with respect to the admission 7 of evidence was harmless, “the central inquiry [is] whether [the] error was likely to 8 have affected the jury’s verdict.” Tollardo , 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 42. Here, for the 9 reasons discussed earlier and as explaine d in detail in our calendar notice, we 10 conclude that any error was harmless and thus affirm Defendant’s convictions. 11 B. Motion to Amend the Docketing Statement 12 Defendant seeks to amend the docketing st atement to argue the district court 13 erred in admitting two exhibits into eviden ce because they were not related to the 14 State’s case and therefore were misleading and confusing in violation of Rule 11-403 15 NMRA. [MIO 7] This issue involves the same two exhibits already discussed, a 16 collection of purported ledgers and check s that arguably showed that Defendant 17 shared in certain payments received as a result of alleged improper billing. [MIO 13] 185 We will grant a motion to amend the docketing statement to include an 1 additional issue if the motion (1) is timely, (2) states all facts material to a 2 consideration of the new issue sought to be raised, (3) explains how the issue was 3 properly preserved or why it may be raised for the first time on appeal, (4) 4 demonstrates just cause by explaining why th e issue was not origin ally raised in the 5 docketing statement, and (5) complies in other respects with the appellate rules. State 6 v. Rael , 100 N.M. 193, 197, 668 P.2d 309, 313 (C t. App. 1983). We will deny a 7 motion to amend that raises anissue that is not viable. State v. Moore , 109 N.M. 119, 8 129, 782 P.2d 91, 101 (Ct. App. 1989), overruled on other grounds by State v. 9 Salgado , 112 N.M. 537, 817 P.2d 730 (Ct. App. 1991). 10 As an initial matter, there is no indicati on that the issue Defendant seeks to add 11 was preserved for our review. In both the docketing statement and the memorandum 12 in opposition, Defendant states that he obj ected to the introduction of the challenged 13 exhibits for “lack of foundation.” [DS 9; MIO 5] Defendant now seeks to argue that 14 the exhibits should have been excluded as misleading and confusing. “Generally, a 15 party may not claim error predicated upon the admission of evidence unless the record 16 shows a timely and specific objection.” Ennis v. Kmart Corp. , 2001-NMCA-068, ¶ 17 24, 131 N.M. 32, 33 P.3d 32. An exception exis ts where an error is plain and affects 186 substantial rights, but Defendant does not contend that the admission of the exhibits 1 constituted plain error. See id. 2 Turning to the merits, Defendant doe s not contend there was a reasonable 3 probability that the admission of the challenge d exhibits affected the verdict. Thus, 4 as discussed earlier, any error was harmless. See State v. Barr , 2009-NMSC-024, 5 ¶ 53, 146 N.M. 301, 210 P.3d 198 (“[A] non-c onstitutional error is harmless when 6 there is no reasonable probabilitythe error affected the verdict.”), overruled on other 7 grounds by Tollardo , 2012-NMSC-008. This proposition is true regardless of whether 8 the exhibits were wrongfully admitted for lack of foundation or wrongfully admitted 9 as misleading and confusing. 10 Because Defendant does not ad equately explain how the issue he seeks to add 11 was preserved in the district court and b ecause, putting preservation aside, the issue 12 is not viable, we deny Defendant’s motion toamend the docketing statement. For the 13 reasons discussed in this Opinion and in our calendar notice, weaffirm Defendant’s 14 convictions. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16

__________________________________ 17 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 18 WE CONCUR: 197 _______________________________ 1 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 2

_______________________________ 3 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 4