While compliance with the signature requirement of Rule 15 (a) may appear to be mandatory, certain requirements for filing a notice of appeal or petition for review are not jurisdictional prerequisites. Compare Montgomery v. Docter, Docter Salus, P.C., 578 A.2d 176, 177 (D.C. 1990), and In re J.W., 763 A.2d 1129, 1131 (D.C. 2000), with Flores v. District of Columbia Rental Hous. Comm'n, 547 A.2d 1000, 1003 (D.C. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1081 (1989). For example, in In re J.W., this court considered the jurisdictional nature vel non of D.C. Code § 23-104 (a)(1) (1996), which requires the United States Attorney or Corporation Counsel to certify that an appeal from a pretrial ruling on a motion to suppress evidence is not taken for the purpose of delay and the evidence is substantial proof of the charge pending against the defendant.
We cannot accept such a naked assertion as sufficient.” Id.; see also In re J.W., 763 A.2d 1129, 1131–32 (D.C.2000) (“We share the concern that the certificate requirement be carefully observed. The certificate, when filed, is conclusive and not subject to substantive review by the appellate court.
We suggest that while it might be a better practice to file the required certification to the trial judge in a separate document to prevent confusion in the future, the certification in this case was sufficient. It is at best questionable whether this practice complies with the statute. See In re J.W., 763 A.2d 1129, 1131-32 (D.C. 2000). It would be a surer practice to file the required certification, properly signed, to the trial court in a separate document.