ORDER DENYING PETITION
This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus challenging petitioners judgment of conviction. Petitioner asserts he was not provided an opportunity to object to the presentence investigation report and that the States willingness to enter a guilty plea agreement demonstrates that there was insufficient evidence to convict petitioner.
Petitioner has not provided this court with cogent argument or any documentation in support of his petition and necessary for this courts consideration of the petition. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing that petitioners must submit an appendix containing all documents “essential to understand[ing] the matters set forth in the petition”). Petitioner bears the burden of showing that extraordinary relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). We conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate our intervention by extraordinary writ is warranted. Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Therefore, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(b). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Cadish, C.J.
Stiglich, J.
Herndon, J.