Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
by a criminal defendant only after conviction. See Workman v. State, 170 Tex.Crim. 621, 622, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961). There are narrow exceptions to the rule requiring conviction before a criminal defendant may appeal. Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App. — Dallas 1998, no pet.); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex.App.— Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (per curiam). A defendant may appeal: (1) while on unad-judicated community supervision; (2) the denial of a motion to reduce bond; (3) the denial of a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus alleging double jeopardy; and (4) the denial of habeas corpus relief in extradition cases. Wright, 969 S.W.2d at 589; McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161. But see Ex parte Shumake, 953 S.W.2d 842, 846-47 (Tex.App. — Austin 1997, no pet.) . In this case, appellant is attempting to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that appeal from denial of rule 60b motion raised for review only the district courts order of denial and not the underlying judgment itself
B. holding that the real id act gave us jurisdiction to review a criminal aliens petition for review of an order of removal raising a question of law
C. holding no jurisdiction to review order raising amount of bail and questioning jurisdiction to review denial of motion to reduce bond
D. holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a denial of adjustment of status as a discretionary matter
E. holding that we do not have jurisdiction to consider the underlying final order upon petition for review of a motion to reopen where the petitioner did not earlier seek review of that underlying final order
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.