¹ See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. confinement for each offense, to be served concurrently. The trial court certified in both cases that Hollis had no right to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). On October 22, 2015, Hollis filed pro se notices of appeal in the trial court. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(c), 26.2. On October 27, we notified Hollis that the trial court had certified that he had no right to appeal and that we would dismiss the appeals unless Hollis or any party desiring to continue the appeals filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeals no later than November 6. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44.3. Hollis responded, but he only asked for a ninety-day extension to file his “appeal brief.” The record does not show that Hollis’s sentences exceeded the State’s recommendations, that he desires to appeal a matter that was raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or that the trial court granted him permission to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Although Hollis has requested an extension to file a brief on the merits, he has not shown cause to continue his appeals in light of the trial court’s certifications. Thus, in accordance with the trial court’s certifications, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).