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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 34,118 4 JERRY LOPEZ, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Ross C. Sanchez, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 12 Sergio Viscoli, Assist ant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. 172 {1} Defendant Jerry Lopez app eals from the district court’s affirmance of the 1 metropolitan court’s convictions for driving while under the influence of intoxicating 2 liquor (DWI) (impaired to the slightest degree) and failure to maintain lane. [DS 1, 8; 3 RP 1– 2, 74] In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to affirm 4 Defendant’s convictions and adopt the memo randum opinion of the district court. [CN 5 1, 2] Defendant filed a me morandum in opposition. We havegiven due consideration 6 to the memorandum in opposition, and, remaining unpersuaded, we affirm 7 Defendant’s convictions. 8
{2} As a prefatory matter, we note that a party responding to a proposed disposition 9 of this Court must point out specific errors in fact or law. See Hennessy v. Duryea , 10 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly 11 held that, in summary calendar cases, th e burden is on the party opposing the proposed 12 disposition to clearly point out errors in f act or law.”). Defendant continues to assert 13 the same facts and arguments that he made in his docketing statement [DS 1, 8] and, 14 the memorandum in opposition is nearly identi cal to the statemen t of the issues he 15 filed with the district court in his on -record appeal. [RP 41–51] We suggest that 16 repetition of facts known to this Court is not an efficient use of counsel’s or this 17 Court’s time, and is of littleuse in assessing whether th is Court should proceed with 18 its proposed summary disposition. 193 {3} In this Court’s notice of proposed dispos ition, we proposed to adopt the district 1 court’s thorough and well-reasoned memorandum opinion in response to Defendant’s 2 arguments. [CN 2; see also RP 77–89] Counsel has not pointed out whether any of the 3 facts asserted are contrary to those relie d on by this Court in our notice of proposed 4 disposition. See State v. Mondragon , 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 5 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward 6 and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments 7 does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in 8 State v. Harris , 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. De fendant has failed to raise any 9 new arguments or issues to convince us to reconsider our proposed adoption of the 10 district court’s memorandum opinion. As su ch, all of the arguments in Defendant’s 11 memorandum in opposition have been addressed by this Court in its notice of 12 proposed disposition and/or the districtcourt’s memorandum opinion this Court 13 proposed to adopt in our notice of proposed disposition, and we re fer Defendant to the 14 responses therein. [ See RP 77–89] 15
{4} Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed disposition and 16 herein, and for the reasons articulated in the memorandum opinion of the district 17 court, we affirm Defendant’s convictions. 18
{5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 194 _______________________________________ 1 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 2 WE CONCUR: 3

4 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 5

6 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 7