Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): noted at 152 N.C. App. 477, 2002 WL 1914015, at *7, 2002 N.C. App. LEXIS 2144, at *19-20 (Aug. 20, 2002) (unpublished opinion); Hart v. Pharaoh, 1961 OK 45, 359 P.2d 1074, 1079; Berg v. Wilson, 353 S.W.3d 166, 180 (Tex. App. 2011); Hidden Meadows Dev. Co. v. Mills, 590 P.2d 1244, 1248 (Utah 1979); Zweber v. Melar Ltd., 2004 WI App 185, ¶ 10, 276 Wis. 2d 156, 687 N.W.2d 818. But see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 405.32 (requiring cancellation of lis pendens notice if the filer failed to prove his claim at trial); Del. Code Ann. tit. 25, § 1608 (granting discretion to cancel lis pendens if the filer is not likely to prevail); Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2731 (permitting courts to cancel lis pendens in certain circumstances during litigation); Sloane v. Davis, 433 So. 2d 374, 375 (La. Ct. App. 1983) (<HOLDING>); Inv’rs Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, 2010 ND 169, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that identification of appellant in notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement and that the failure to name a party in a notice to appeal constitutes a failure of that party to appeal (B) holding that notice of administrative forfeiture sent to prisoner did not require actual notice to the property owner only notice reasonably calculated to apprise a party of the pendency of the action (C) holding that statute permitting cancellation of lis pendens  at any time  allowed cancellation during pendency of appeal emphasis omitted quoting nd cent code  280508 (D) holding that appeal did not prevent cancellation of lis pendens under statute reading in part that lis pendens shall be canceled  w hen judgment is rendered in the action or proceeding against the party who filed the notice of the pendency thereof     quoting la code civ proc ann art 3753 (E) holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding
Output (English): holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding