 she be able to explain the certification process.

17        Defendant continues to argue that the testimony of the officer was not sufficient

18 to establish foundation for admission of the breath alcohol test results. We recognize

19 that the officer was not able to answer questions relating to the margin of error for

                                              2
 1 samples run and that she was unable to testify about certification procedures.

 2 However, she was able to testify that there was a current SLD certificate for the

 3 machine that she used. And, she testified that she used SLD-mandated procedures to

 4 perform the test. That is all that the law requires. Id. Therefore, we affirm the

 5 admission of the breath test results in this case.

 6        The evidence of those breath test results is sufficient evidence to support a

 7 conviction for per se DWI, that is that Defendant drove and within three hours of his

 8 driving he had a breath alcohol level more than .08. NMSA 1978, § 66-8-102(C)(1)

 9 (2010).

10        As there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for per se DWI, we

11 need not address whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction under

12 impaired driving. See State v. Olguin, 120 N.M. 740, 741, 906 P.2d 731, 732 (1995)

13 (allowing affirmance of a general verdict if one of the alternatives is supported by

14 sufficient evidence).

15        For the reasons stated herein and in the notice of proposed disposition, we

16 affirm.

17        IT IS SO ORDERED.



18                                          __________________________________
19                                          CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge

                                              3
1 WE CONCUR:



2 __________________________________
3 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge



4 __________________________________
5 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge




                                  4


838 F.2d 1209Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation o