With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". should be dismissed. The Jewell case the majority cites does not support its holding. In Jewell v. Moser, 2012 Ark. 267, we said that while we have required only substantial compliance with the procedural steps of Rule 3(e) the notice of appeal did not contain a scrivener’s error because the final order was filed after the notice of appeal. Jewell, 2012 Ark. 267. The cases where we found substantial compliance dealt with ancillary procedural requirements such as the financial-arrangement language and the ordering of the trial transcript. See, e.g., Helton v. Jacobs, 346 Ark. 344, 57 S.W.3d 180 (2001) (noting that failure to include finan cial-arrangements language in a notice of appeal no longer renders that notice invalid); Phillips v. LaValle, 293 Ark. 364, 737 S.W.2d 652 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, in Jewell, we noted that a

A: holding that because the restitution was ordered as part of a state criminal prosecution it was excepted from discharge in bankruptcy
B: holding that it was not fatal when the notice of appeal did not state that the transcript had been ordered when in actuality it had been ordered
C: holding that where a witness had been convicted seventeen years earlier but had been given probation and had not been confined the date of the conviction controlled
D: holding appeal moot where tests that had been ordered under the preliminary injunction had already been car ried out
B.