he filed the three documents within 10 days of the bankruptcy court’s decision, but nevertheless argues that his submissions did not constitute a “notice of appeal.” MCIC’s contention, which was accepted by the district court, is not persuasive. Green’s “Motion for Leave to Appeal,” coupled with the “Notice of Filing,” closely follow the Official Form, see 11 U .S.C. Official Bankr.Form 17, because they identify the order from which he appeals, name the parties to the dispute, and provide the name and address of MCIC’s counsel. The only information missing from these documents is counsel’s telephone number, but such an omission is trivial and does not divest the district court of subject matter jurisdiction. See Smith v. Berry, 502 U.S. 244, 248, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Green’s submissions contain the necessary
holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner holding that courts should look at the notice afforded by a document rather than a litigants motivation in filing to determine whether a document constitutes a notice of appeal holding that the notice afforded by a document determines its sufficiency as a notice of appeal holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city holding that the filing of an opening brief within the time period for filing a notice of appeal could constitute notice of appeal