With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". appellate courts as to how Federal Rule 3(c)(1)(B) should be understood. Time after time, the federal appellate courts have held that an appeal from a final judgment encompasses previous rulings in the case being appealed. See, e.g., John’s Insulation, Inc. v. L. Addison and Associates, Inc., 156 F.3d 101, 105 (1st Cir.1998) (“[A] notice of appeal that designates the final judgment encompasses not only that judgment, but also all earlier interlocutory orders that merge in the judgment.”); see also McBride v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 281 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir.2002) (“[A] notice of appeal which names the final judgment is sufficient to support review of all earlier orders that merge in the final judgment.”); Greer v. St. Louis Regional Medical Center, 258 F.3d 843, 846 (8th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1012 (9th

A: holding that when reviewing a final judgment we generally also have jurisdiction to review all prior nonfinal orders and rulings which produced the judgment
B: holding that a notice of appeal that specifies the final judgment brings up for review all of the previous rulings and orders that led up to that final judgment
C: recognizing that a final judgment may provide for a particular standard upon which to modify a final judgment
D: holding that the standard of review is abuse of discretion and an appeal from denial of rule 60b relief does not bring up the underlying judgment for review
B.