With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". John Donovan, Justice Following mediation of the underlying dispute in this case, a Rule 11 settlement agreement (“the Agreement”), containing a provision to arbitrate “any disagreement re 644, 647-48 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2002, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>)). We therefore reject Cellex’s argument that

A: holding that the appeal was properly before the court where the appellant appealed from an order amending a prior order without appealing from the prior order
B: holding that appellant could challenge interlocutory partial summary judgment even though notice of appeal stated that appeal was from order sustaining subsequent plea to the jurisdiction
C: holding that notice of appeal from default judgment that was the final order in the case also allowed appellant to raise appellate issues challenging prior interlocutory order dismissing part of case for want of prosecution
D: holding that issues resolved in favor of the prosecution cannot be considered on the prosecutions interlocutory appeal from an order granting the defendants suppression motion
C.