With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". than merely allowing that fact to be proved in connection with the second conviction. We believe that this issue relates to the sufficiency of a prior judgment as evidence to prove the enhancement fact and/or the relevance of extrinsic evidence of a family/household relationship of a pri- or victim, depending on whether the prior judgment must reflect a family violence finding. Because neither of these issues was presented to, or decided by, the trial court in connection with th nting a motion to suppress, it failed in this case to provide the required certification that the appeal was not taken for delay and that the suppressed evidence is of substantial importance to the case. See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(5); State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408, 411 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (<HOLDING>). 2 . See Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 22.01(b)(2)

A: holding that where the issue of sanctions was not before the court of appeals when the appeal was filed the district court retained jurisdiction
B: recognizing that failure to observe the required process deprives the court of jurisdiction
C: holding that failure to take available appeal to board of immigration appeals constitutes failure to exhaust administrative remedies and deprives the court of appeals of jurisdiction to review
D: recognizing that failure by state to provide the required certification deprives appeals court of jurisdiction over appeal
D.