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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 35,809 4 ISHMEL NORMAN, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Benjamin Chavez, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 12 Santa Fe, NM 13 Josephine H. Ford, Assistant Public Defender 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 VANZI, Chief Judge. 182 {1} Defendant appeals from the district court’s affirmance of the metropolitan 1 court’s conviction for driving while under th e influence of intoxicating liquor (DWI). 2 We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. In response, Defendant filed a 3 memorandum in opposition, which we have dul y considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm. 4 Probable Cause 5
{2} We turn first to Defendant’s continue d contention that Officer Brown lacked 6 probable cause to arrest him based on the field sobriety test s conducted and other 7 evidence. [DS 42, MIO 1] In this Court’ s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed 8 to adopt the district court’s memorandum opinion affirming the conviction. [CN 4] 9
{3} Defendant’s memorandum in opposition raises no new arguments with respect 10 to this issue apart from those that he made in his docketing statement [DS 42] and in 11 the statement of the issues he filed with th e district court in his on-record appeal [RP 12 v.2/326-38]. In this Court’s notice of propos ed disposition, we proposed to adopt this 13 portion of the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned memorandum opinion in 14 response to Defendant’s arguments. [CN 4-5; see also RP v.2/348-50] In his 15 memorandum in opposition, Defendant has faile d to raise any new arguments or issues 16 to convince us to reconsider our proposed adoption of the district court’s 17 memorandum opinion with respect to this i ssue. As such, all of the arguments in 18 Defendant’s memorandum in opposition with respect to this issue have been addressed 19 by this Court in its notice of proposed disposition and/or the portion of the district 203 court’s memorandum opinion this Court proposed to adopt in our notice of proposed 1 disposition, and we re fer Defendant to the responses therein. [ Seev.2/348–50] We 2 therefore affirm. 3 Foundational Challenge to Admission of Breath Card 4
{4} Defendant continues to argue that the district court abused its discretion by 5 admitting the breath card without proper foundation because the State failed to 6 demonstrate strict compliance with the SLD accuracy-ensuring regulations for radio 7 frequency interference (RFI) tes ting. [MIO 3-5; DS 42] Our notice observed that strict 8 compliance with the regulation was not required because the language of the 9 regulation requires only that the instrument be evaluated fo r RFI interference, see 10 7.33.2.10 (B)(2)(b)(iii) NMAC, and further specifications are provided in the SOP. 11 [RP v.2/209] As such, even though the plain language of the standard operating 12 procedure (SOP) seems to require that a key operator test on mul tiple channels and 13 multiple frequencies, we observed that it would be contrary to the spirit of the 14 regulation to require a mechanistic adherence to every word of the SOP where 15 technology has changed significantly since the 1980s, and evidence was presented that 16 the frequency changes during the test ev en when a single channel is used. See 17 Martinez v. Cornejo , 2009-NMCA-011, ¶ 11, 146 N.M. 223, 208 P.3d 443 (explaining 18 that appellate courts “are permitted to depart from the pl ain meaning rule to avoid a 19 formalistic and mechanical statutory construction that would be absurd, unreasonable, 204 or contrary to the spirit of the statute” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 1

{5} In response, Defendant’s memorandum in opposition makes two arguments. 2 First, Defendant argues that even though Wayne DeChano (theAlbuquerque Police 3 Department (APD) key operato r) explained his reasons fo r the way he conducts the 4 testing, he did so “only superficially.” [MIO 4] We remain unpersuaded. As our notice 5 observed, [CN 7-8] Mr. DeChano agreed that the SOP outlined the method by which 6 location RFI is to be checked. [RP v.2/346] Mr. DeChano explained that even though 7 the plain language of the SO P requires him to test multiple channels and multiple 8 frequencies, the SOP was written in the 1980s, when a single channel corresponded 9 to a single frequency. [RP v.2/ 346; DS 34] He testified th at current technology enables 10 a single channel to capture multiple freque ncies. [RP v.2/346; DS 34] Further, he 11 testified that changing the channel would not necessarily change the frequency and 12 that the frequencies change independently from the changing of the channel. [RP 13 v.2/346] Because the test on the IR-8000 machine used to conduct Defendant’s breath 14 test showed that the machine properl y responded to the RFI introduced by Mr. 15 DeChano, Mr. DeChano testified that he co mplied with the SOP and the spirit of the 16 guidelines. [RP v.2/346; DS 34] The aforementioned testimony was sufficiently 17 detailed to permit the trial court to understand technology at the time the SOP was 18 developed, as compared to the current state of technology. [CN 8] Additionally, 195 Defendant has not provided us with any au thority to suggest that Mr. DeChano’s 1 testimony alone was insufficient. State v. Vigil-Giron , 2014-NMCA-069, ¶ 60, 327 2 P.3d 1129 (“[A]ppellate courts will not consider an issue if no authority is cited in 3 support of the issue and that, given no cite d authority, we assume no such authority 4 exists.”). Defendant’s memorandum in oppos ition further contends that “the APD 5 procedures were different from the [Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office] procedures, 6 which ‘show how SLD procedures ought to befollowed.’ ” [MIO 4] Defendant cites 7 to no authority in support of his contention and does not specify how these procedures 8 were different in any way; we decline to review this undeveloped argument. See State 9 v. Guerra , 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 21, 278 P.3d 1031 (explaining that appellate courts are 10 under no obligation to review uncl ear or undeveloped arguments). 11
{6} Defendant additionally argues that the machine was unreliable when 12 Defendant’s breath test was conducted because “the machin e has a margin of error of 13 .02, and the machine was checked several months before the date of [Defendant’s] 14 breath test[.]” [MIO 5] Again, Defendant provides no authority in support of his 15 contention, and we decline to re view this undeveloped argument. See id . To the extent 16 Defendant generally attacks the breath alcoholtest results on the basis that the results 17 have some inherent uncertainty, we disagree. See State v. Montoya , 2016-NMCA-079, 18 ¶¶ 13, 26-27, 382 P.3d 948 (holding that the de fendants’ general argument that their 19 breath alcohol test “results [were] inadmissible due to principles of uncertainty 206 inherent to all systems of forensic measurement” could be argued to the jury and went 1 to the weight rather than the admissibility of the evidence). We therefore affirm. 2 Sufficiency of the Evidence 3
{7} Defendant’s docketing statement conte nded that insufficient evidence was 4 presented to support his conviction for per se DWI. Our notice proposed to affirm, 5 observing that Defendant was challenging only the element requiring the State to 6 prove that he had a breath alcohol concentr ation at or above 0.08 within three hours 7 of driving. [CN 10] The breath test results in this case were admitted as 0.11 and 0.09, 8 which was greater than 0.08, and our noti ce further observed that we perceived no 9 foundational issue with the district court’ s admission of the breath card. In response, 10 Defendant’s memorandum in opposition advan ces no new arguments with respect to 11 this issue. See State v. Mondragon , 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 12 1003 (providing that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come 13 forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier 14 arguments does not fulfill this requirement). We therefore affirm. 15
{8} Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed disposition and 16 detailed above, we affirm. 17
{9} IT IS SO ORDERED. 18

__________________________________ 19 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 207 WE CONCUR: 1

_________________________________ 2 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 3

_________________________________ 4 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge 5