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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. A-1-CA-37489 4 DUC LAUYNH, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Christina P. Argyres, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 12 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 VANZI, Judge. 17 {1} Defendant appeals from the district c ourt’s order revoking his probation. This 18 Court issued a notice of proposed disposition in which we proposed to affirm. 192 Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain 1 unpersuaded. We therefore affirm. 2 {2} We previously set forth the relevant background information and principles of 3 law in the notice of proposed summary dis position. We will not reiterate at length 4 here. Instead, we will focus on the content of the memorandum in opposition. 5 {3} In his memorandum in opposition to our notice of proposed disposition, 6 Defendant does not point out specific errors in fact or law. See Hennessy v. Duryea , 7 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly 8 held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed 9 disposition to clearly point out errors infact or law.”). Nevertheless, Defendant 10 maintains that there was insuffi cient evidence to establish that he willfully violated his 11 probation. [MIO 1, 4-6] De fendant claims that the only evidence in support of the 12 allegations that he committed the crimes of aggravated assault and being a felon in 13 possession of a firearm was the testimony of Michael Vargas. [MIO 5-6] Defendant 14 acknowledges that Vargas testified that Defendant pulled a gun on him after a verbal 15 dispute over a parking space and there was video evidence that may have corroborated 16 Vargas’s testimony. [MIO 6; see also CN 3] Additionally, Defendant recognizes that 17 officers found him and a firearm in an apartment. [MIO 6; see alsoCN 3] However, 18 he asserts that there was no evidence thatthe firearm recovered was the firearm at 193 issue, and he asserts he did not live at the apartment where heand the firearm were 1 found. [MIO 6; see also DS 4] He further maintains that he told the officer that he had 2 a cell phone in his hand while he was arguing with Vargas, and a cell phone—not a 3 firearm—was found on his person. [MIO 6; see also CN 3] 4 {4} As discussed in our notice of proposed disposition, we will not reweigh the 5 evidence. [CN 4] See State v. Salas , 1999-NMCA-099, ¶ 13, 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 6 482 (recognizing that it is for the fact-finder to resolve any conflict in the testimony 7 of the witnesses and to determine where the weight and credibility lie). Therefore, for 8 the reasons discussed above and in this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we 9 conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Defendant 10 willfully violated his probation. 11 {5} Accordingly, we affirm the re vocation of Defendant’s probation. 12 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

__________________________________ 14 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 15 WE CONCUR: 16

_________________________________ 17 JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge 18

_________________________________ 19 KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge 20