With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to fourteen years in 1998. According to appellant, the trial court lost jurisdiction over appellant’s first resuspended sentence in 2006, ten years after the 1996 imposition of suspension, and thus the trial court’s action in 2010 revoking appellant’s previously suspended sentence was void. Appellant concedes that he did not preserve his assignment of error under Rule 5A:18 and invokes the ends of justice exception to Rule 5A:18. We need not determine whether Rule 5A:18 bars consideration of appellant’s assignment of error because, even assuming Rule 5A:18 does not bar appellant’s claim, appellant’s argument fails. Here, the trial court extended the period of suspension in the 1998 sentencing order. See Hartless v. Commonwealth, 29 Va.App. 172, 175, 510 S.E.2d 738, 740 (1999) (<HOLDING>). Essentially, appellant’s claim in this appeal

A: holding the state did not meet its burden of proving defendant operated a motor vehicle while suspended where the only evidence of actual notice of suspension was that dot mailed defendant the notice of suspension
B: holding that the board maintains discretion to revoke an inmates suspended sentence if the inmate commits offenses that demonstrate he is unworthy of the suspension
C: holding that the good behavior requirement of a suspended sentence defined the period of suspension
D: recognizing of course the suspension of the imposition of sentence and the grant of probation
C.