This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 CITY OF ROSWELL, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. A-1-CA-36179 4 CHARLES NORIEGA, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY 7 James M. Hudson, District Judge 8 Paul V. Sanchez 9 El Prado, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Charles Noriega 12 Roswell, NM 13 Pro Se Appellant 14 MEMORANDUM OPINION 15 VANZI, Chief Judge. 16 {1} Defendant Charles Noriega appeals in a self-represented capacity from the 17 district court’s judgment and sentence and order of remand following Defendant’s de 182 novo appeal from municipal court to district court. On appeal, Defendant contends 1 that the municipal court and district c ourt erred in not provi ding Defendant counsel 2 and the courts exercised judicial bias ag ainst him. This Court issued a notice of 3 proposed disposition addressing these issues and proposing to affirm. Defendant has 4 filed an informal memorandum in oppositi on, which we have duly considered. 5 Unpersuaded, we affirm. 6 {2} In this Court’s notice of proposed dispos ition, we noted that in order for error 7 to be reversible that error must be prejudicial. See State v. Fernandez , 1994-NMCA8 056, ¶ 13, 117 N.M. 673, 875 P.2d 1104 (“In the absence of prejudice, there is no 9 reversible error.”). We further noted that Defendant did not app ear to have met his 10 burden of demonstrating prejudice on appeal. [CN 3] In his memorandum in 11 opposition, Defendant does not inform this Court how not having counsel during the 12 initial hearings, where the only charge that carried the possibility of imprisonment was 13 dismissed prior to trial, prejudiced him. As a result, we conclude Defendant has not 14 demonstrated error. 15 {3} Moreover, on the issue of judicial bias, Defendant provides no argument to 16 counter this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, relying solely on conclusory 17 statements. See State v. Mondragon , 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 18 1003 (stating that “[a] party responding to a summary calendar notice must come 19 forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact,” and the repetition of earlier 203 arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds 1 as stated in State v. Harris , 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374; Hennessy v. Duryea , 2 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly 3 held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed 4 disposition to clearly point out errors in factor law.”). As a result, we conclude that 5 Defendant has not met his burden on appeal. 6 {4} Accordingly, we affirm. 7 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

__________________________________ 9 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 10 WE CONCUR: 11

_________________________________ 12 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge 13

_________________________________ 14 EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge 15