With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 78 F.3d 397, 399 (8th Cir.1996). Minnesota Mutual argues, however, that our review is foreclosed because Parkhill did not indicate in his notice of appeal that he intended to appeal the district court’s denial of class certification. We agree and conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the denial. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(1)(B) provides that the notice of appeal must “designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed.” When determining whether an appeal from a particular district court action is properly taken, we construe the notice of appeal liberally and permit review where the intent of the appeal is obvious and the adverse party incurs no prejudice. Moore v. Robertson Fire Prot. Dist., 249 F.3d 786, 788 Inc., 153 F.3d 622, 625-26 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Bosley v. Kearney R-1 Sch. Dist., 140 F.3d

A: holding that notice indicating the appeal was from summary judgment order was insufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction to reach appellants challenge to earlier order compelling arbitration
B: holding that notice indicating appeal was from judgment on date of jury verdict was insufficient to preserve appeal from earlier order granting summary judgment
C: holding that court lacked jurisdiction on appeal from injunction because the order was simply an interpretation of an earlier order
D: holding that notice of judgment was insufficient
A.