burden of ensuring that the final order complies with the requirements of Rule 37 and that the appellate record is sufficient for review. Preston, 759 S.W.2d at 650. The State argues that Defendant’s certified question of law did not identify “clearly the scope and limits of the legal issue reserved” as required by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii). Although Defendant’s certified question would have benefitted from the incorporation of more fact-specific references, we hold the substance of the question nevertheless satisfies our jurisdictional requirements and that the issue of whether the State violated the anti-shuttling provisions of the IAD in light of Bozeman is properly before this Court. Cf. State v. Colzie, No. M1998-00253-CCA-R3-CD, 1999 WL 1074111, at *3 (Tenn.Crim.App. Nov. 30, 1999) (<HOLDING>); State v. Harris, 919 S.W.2d 619, 621
holding that a certified question was sufficient when it was evident that the statement of the issue reflected the grounds for suppression that defendant asserted at the trial court even though it could have been more precisely drafted holding that when a court of appeals has jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal the scope of appellate review is not limited to the precise question certified by the district court because the district courts order not the certified question is brought before the court holding that when defendant failed to appear at scheduled suppression hearing the court could have decided the motion in defendants absence but it did not have the authority to refuse to consider it holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen holding that where the district court decided two issues in the certified order but identified only the damages issue as the controlling question of law the court of appeals could nonetheless address the other issue