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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 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. 33,200 4 RAY HODGE, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY 7 Freddie J. Romero, 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 VIGIL, Judge. 172 {1} Defendant Ray Hodge appeals his conviction for trafficking methamphetamine. 1 In our notice of proposed summary dispositi on, we proposed to affirm. In response to 2 this Court’s notice, Defendant has file d a memorandum in opposition, which we have 3 duly considered. As we do not find Defendant’s arguments persuasive, we affirm. 4 Motion to Suppress 5 {2} Defendant contends that the districtcourt erred in denying his motion to 6 suppress evidence that he claims was obtaine d pursuant to an invalid search warrant. 7 [DS 2] In this Court’s notice of proposedsummary disposition, we proposed to find 8 no error. We relied on the fact that the h earsay statements contai ned in the affidavit 9 in support of the warrant were made by a named informant whose statements were 10 against his penal interest. See State v. Steinzig , 1999-NMCA-107, ¶ 19, 127 N.M. 752, 11 987 P.2d 409 (“[A] named informant has greater incentive to provide truthful 12 information because he . . . is subject to unfavorable consequences for providing false 13 or inaccurate information to a greater degree than an unnamed or anonymous 14 individual.”), limited on other grounds by State v. Williamson , 2009-NMSC-039, ¶ 29, 15 146 N.M. 488, 212 P.3d 376; State v. Barker , 1992-NMCA-117, ¶ 6, 114 N.M. 589, 16 844 P.2d 839 (stating that “people do not lightly admit a crime and place critical 17 evidence in the hands of the police in the form of their own admission; thus, 18 admissions of crime may carry their own indicia of credibility”). 193 {3} In Defendant’s memorandum in oppositi on, he relies on a number of cases 1 discussing whether a hearsay statement made by a witness who is unavailable to 2 testify at trial is sufficiently reliable to be admitted into eviden ce pursuant to Rule 11- 3 804(B)(3) NMRA. [MIO 6-7] As this is not the legal question befo re this Court, and 4 as Defendant provides no authority to support an argument that the Rule 11-804(B)(3) 5 standard applies when assessing a warrant to determine if it provides a substantial 6 basis for concluding that the place to be s earched contains evidence of a crime, we 7 presume that these authorities are inapplicable. See In re Adoption of Doe, 1984- 8 NMSC-024, ¶ 2, 100 N.M. 764, 676 P.2d 1329 (s tating that when a party cites no 9 authority in support of a proposition, this Court may assume that this is because the 10 party has researched the matter and failed to find any supporting authority). 11 {4} Defendant also relies on a statement in State v. Dietrich , 2009-NMCA-031, ¶ 12 16, 145 N.M. 733, 204 P.3d 748 that distinguishes between “ unnamed police contacts 13 or informers” and citizen-informers who are giving information in the “spirit of a 14 concerned citizen.” (Emphasis added.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 15 However, here, the informant was a named informant, and we therefore conclude that 16 Dietrichdoes not support Defendant’s claim that the informant was inherently 17 unreliable. Accordingly, we find no error in the district court’s denial of Defendant’s 18 motion to suppress. 194 The Agreement Not to Prosecute 1 {5} Defendant contends that the district c ourt erred in concluding that he breached 2 the terms of his agreement with the State. [DS 4-5] In this Court’s notice of proposed 3 summary disposition, we proposed to conclude that there was sufficient evidence to 4 establish that Defendant failed to provide law enforcement with the five defendants 5 that he had agreed to provide. In the altern ative, we stated thateven if there was not 6 sufficient evidence to establish that Defendant had agreed to provide five defendants, 7 we proposed to hold that there was sufficient evidence to establish that Defendant had 8 failed to maintain communication with the ta sk force until all court cases in which he 9 was involved were closed. 10 {6} In Defendant’s memorandum in oppositi on, he only addresses the number of 11 defendants that he agreed to provide; he does not address our c onclusion that even if 12 he was required to provide fe wer than five defendants, he breached the agreement by 13 failing to maintain contact with the task fo rce until all cases in which he was involved 14 were closed. As we stated th at this was an independent basis for upholding the district 15 court’s decision, and as Defendant has provided no facts or argument to counter this 16 basis, we conclude that hehas failed to demonstrate error in the district court’s 17 determination that he breached the agreement. See Hennessy v. Duryea , 18 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly 195 held that, in summary calendar cases, th e burden is on the party opposing the proposed 1 disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”). 2 {7} Therefore, for the reasons stated hereand in our notice of proposed summary 3 disposition, we affirm. 4 {8} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

__________________________________ 6 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 7 WE CONCUR: 8

___________________________________ 9 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge 10

___________________________________ 11 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 12