With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". N.T. Suppression, 6/16/99, at 3. 2 . The jury acquitted appellant of one charge of indecent assault, which pertained to a nine-year-old girl, A.S., who reported an incident similar to K.V.’s. 3 . Because appellant has withdrawn this issue for appeal, see Brief for Appellant at 21, we need not address it further. 4 . Appellant’s only evidence that the PRS was three is a statement the prosecutor made during trial, see N.T. Sentencing, 9/7/99, at 8. The trial court did not acknowledge this statement, however, and appellant has failed to provide us with the pre-sentence report. Consequently, even had appellant raised this issue properly, we do not have the informa tion before us to make that determination. Appellant would therefore have waived this argument. See Lassen, 659 A.2d at 1008 (<HOLDING>). 5 . As noted earlier, appellant also argued

A: holding record insufficient to support inference appellant knew consequences of his plea when record is silent about whether appellant was actually informed that a guilty plea could result in his deportation
B: holding that the appellant waived his claim on appeal because he failed to address that claim in either his application for a coa or his brief on appeal
C: holding that nonenglish materials submitted for review may not be considered during the pretrial process or become part of the record
D: holding that where our review depends on materials not found in the certified record appellant waives his or her claim
D.