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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 35,906 4 MICHAEL BALTES, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DE BACA COUNTY 7 Albert J. Mitchell Jr., District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Michael Baltes 12 Fort Sumner, NM 13 Pro se Appellant 14 MEMORANDUM OPINION 15 GARCIA, Judge. 16 {1} Defendant-Appellant Michael Baltes (Defendant) appeals, in a self-represented 17 capacity, from the district court’s order entitle d “order dismissing notice of appeal and 182 remand to magistrate court[.]” [RP 106, 108; DS 1] We previously issued a notice of 1 proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm. Defendant has filed 2 a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Because we remain 3 unpersuaded, we affirm. 4 {2} Our notice proposed to affirm on two alternative bases. [CN 2–4] First, we 5 explained that the law of th e case doctrine precluded our review of Defendant’s issues 6 on the merits. See Alba v. Hayden , 2010-NMCA-037, ¶ 7, 148 N.M. 465, 237 P.3d 7 767. Defendant already sought tohave the merits of his appeal reviewed by this Court 8 in 2014, but this Court dismissed his appeal due to his failure to file a timely notice 9 of appeal. We further explained that once mandate was issued by this Court, the 10 district court’s review of the proceedings was limited to the sc ope of the mandate. See 11 State ex rel. King v. UU Bar Ranch Ltd. P’ship , 2009-NMSC-010, ¶ 22, 145 N.M. 12 769, 205 P.3d 816 (“The district court was not free to enlarge or alter the issues 13 presented in the mandate.”). 14 {3} Second, our notice observed that Defendant’s notice of appeal in magistrate 15 court was untimely filed. [CN 3–4] Because Defendant is representing himself, our 16 notice explained that we do not extend the presumption of ineffective assistance of 17 counsel and require that he file a timely notice of appeal in the correct tribunal. See 18 Bruce v. Lester, 1999-NMCA-051, ¶ 4, 127 N.M 301, 980 P.2d 84. 193 {4} Defendant’s memorandum in opposition does not respond to the first basis for 1 affirmance set forth in our notice of propos ed disposition, regarding the applicability 2 of the law of the case doctrine. Defendant ha s therefore failed to persuade us to depart 3 from the initial position set forth in our notice. See State v. Johnson , 4 1988-NMCA-029, ¶ 8, 107 N.M. 356, 758 P. 2d 306 (stating that when a case is 5 decided on the summary calendar, an issu e is deemed abandoned where a party fails 6 to respond to the proposed disposition of the issue). 7 {5} In response to the second basis for affirmance, the untimely notice of appeal in 8 magistrate court, Defendant explains that he is not represented by an attorney, and to 9 the best of his knowledge, he completed and filed all necessary paperwork in a timely 10 manner. [MIO unnumbered 2] Defendant does not, however, offer any additional facts 11 to demonstrate that notice of appeal was, in fact, timely filed in the correct tribunal. 12 See Hennessy v. Duryea , 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our 13 courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party 14 opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”) We 15 acknowledge that Defendant has chosen to represent himsel f in this appeal. However, 16 self-represented litigants must comply with the rules and orders of the court and will 17 not be treated differently from litigants with counsel. See Bruce , 1999-NMCA-051, 18 ¶ 4. 194 {6} In sum, Defendant has not demonstrated th at either of the two alternative bases 1 for affirmance proposed in our notice were in error. Accordingly, for the reasons 2 stated above and in the notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm. 3 {7} IT IS SO ORDERED. 4

__________________ ______________ 5 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 6 WE CONCUR: 7

_______________________________ 8 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 9

_______________________________ 10 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 11