''.4PZENNEWIAiMi5:1 41:4h, EIVAMAI rcv 

Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005). Here, 

the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing, heard testimony from 

Silva, several witnesses on his behalf, and his former defense counsel, 

Tammy M. Riggs, and determined that Riggs provided "effective 

assistance" at sentencing and that Silva "failed to prove prejudice, that is, 

that the Court would have sentenced Petitioner differently had Ms. Riggs 

done those things Petitioner alleges she should have." See Hill v. 

Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985); see also Strickland v. Washington, 

466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984); Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 987, 923 

P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996). Although the district court's order denying the 

petition did not specifically address counsel's failure to object to 

statements made by the prosecutor at the sentencing hearing, Silva failed 

to demonstrate prejudice because this court determined in resolving his 

direct appeal that he was not entitled to relief based on prosecutorial 

misconduct. See Silva v. State, Docket No. 53680 (Order of Affirmance, 

August 25, 2009). We conclude that the district court did not err by 

rejecting Silva's ineffective-assistance claims. 

Second, Silva contends that his right to due process and a fair 

hearing were violated by the district court's overruling of his objection to 

Riggs' testimony regarding his counseling records and her tactical decision 

not to offer them for consideration at the sentencing hearing. According to 

Riggs, the records indicated, among other things, that Silva had an anger 

problem. Silva's post-conviction counsel objected to Riggs' testimony on 

hearsay grounds and informed the district court that she had "never seen 

these records" or "heard of an anger issue." In overruling the objection, 

the district court noted that counsel would be allowed to cross-examine 

Riggs about the counseling records, which she did. On appeal, Silva 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
PC0.4.31. 

Parraguirre 

Zji7SfALS7.4EFF:"TA , 4 WA: 

claims that evidence pertaining to his counseling records was suspect and 

should be redacted from the record. We disagree. The discretion to admit 

testimony at an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction habeas petition 

lies with the district court. See generally Brown v. State, 110 Nev. 846, 

852, 877 P.2d 1071, 1075 (1994). Here, the subject of the counseling 

records arose during the State's questioning of Riggs about her tactical 

decisions in preparing for Silva's sentencing hearing. Silva fails to provide 

any persuasive argument or legal authority in support of his claim for 

relief, and we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion 

by allowing Riggs' testimony. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2 

Hardesty 

cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge 

Karla K. Butko 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

2We note that although Silva's counsel certified that the fast track 

statement complies with the requirements of NRAP 32(a)(5) because it 

was prepared using 14-point Times New Roman font, the font in the brief 

appears smaller than represented. We remind Silva's counsel that 

misrepresentations in the certificate of compliance can be a basis for the 

imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(h)(3), (n); NRAP 28.2; NRAP 32(e). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3 

' J.