With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". It acknowledged that section 903.26 does not contain any specific requirements for the notice to the surety; however, it restated its prior holding that the notice requirements specified in South-land are a strict prerequisite to forfeiture of a bond. 830 So.2d at 232. It then vacated the order estreating bond, reasoning that the notice complied with only one of the requirements by identifying the nature of the hearing. Id. Because the notice did not state that the defendant’s presence was required or that his failure to appear would result in a forfeiture, it was defective and ambiguous. Id. Appellant does not argue that it did not receive the required 72 hours’ actual notice of the defendants’ arraignment. See Allied Fidelity Ins. Co. v. State, 499 So.2d 932, 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (<HOLDING>). Generally, the plain meaning of a statute is

A: holding that appearance at the scheduled hearing demonstrates actual notice of the hearing
B: holding that 72 hours actual notice before a hearing is required it is not sufficient to make court calendars available to all the sureties in the county
C: holding that where the recipient is a federal prisoner the government is required to provide him with actual notice of a deprivation
D: holding that it is not
B.