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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 UNINSURED EMPLOYER’S FUND, 3 Petitioner-Appellee, 4

v. NO. 34,497 5 ROMAN HERNANDEZ d/b/a 6 TIBURON CONSTRUCTION, 7 Respondent-Appellant. 8 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 9 Alan M. Malott, District Judge 10 Richard J. Crollett 11 Albuquerque, NM 12 for Appellee 13 Frederick D. Jones, Jr. 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 ZAMORA, Judge. 18 {1} Respondent appeals from the district c ourt’s judgment adopting the Workers’ 19 Compensation Administration’s (WCA’s) supplementary compensation order and 202 awarding the Uninsured Employers’ Fund (UEF) $76,860.73 for unpaid funds, plus 1 interest and the mandatory statutory pe nalty, due to the UEF under a stipulated 2 compensation order. We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing 3 to affirm. Respondent has filed a memorandum in opposition to our notice. We have 4 considered Respondent’s response and re main unpersuaded th at Respondent has 5 demonstrated the district court erred. We affirm. 6 {2} Our notice proposed to affirm on multiple grounds: Respondent’s arguments 7 refer to matters that are not in the record before us; Respondent did not establish how 8 his arguments on appeal were preserve d in district court; Respondent provided 9 insufficient information to address the merits of the appeal; Respondent’s arguments 10 constitute improper collateral attacks on prev ious judgments that are controlling; and 11 the district court followed the statutory in structions contained in NMSA 1978, Section 12 52-5-10(B) (1990), that required it to accep t the WCA’s supplementary compensation 13 order without review of the WCA’s actions. 14 {3} In response to our notice, Respondent represents that he filed a timely appeal 15 of the WCA’s order denying the motion to set aside the supplemental compensation 16 order, but he does not explain the outcome of the appeal and how that appeal would 17 change our proposed disposition. [MIO 1-2] Also, because Respondent did not 18 arrange for the record relative to the previ ous appeal to become a part of the record 193 before us, it is not a matter of record for this Court. [MIO 2] Respondent also 1 concedes that he did not appeal from the stipulated compensation order or the 2 recommended resolution, which formed the ba sis for the district court’s order from 3 which he now appeals. [MIO 2] Respondent ne vertheless requests thatwe consider his 4 arguments, without citation to any authority that would support his request. [MIO 3] 5 {4} None of Respondent’s arguments persua de us that any part of our proposed 6 analysis was incorrect, and none of his argum ents demonstrate that the district court 7 erred by accepting the supplemental compensation order of the WCA as valid. As a 8 result, for the reasons stated in this Opinion and in our notice we affirm the district 9 court’s judgment. 10 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

12 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 13 WE CONCUR: 14

15 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 16

17 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 18