thereof being appealed.” Fed. R.App. P. 3(c)(1)(B). We generally have jurisdiction to review “only those judgments, orders or portions thereof’ the appellant’s notice of appeal designates. Osterneck v. E.T. Barwick Indus., Inc., 825 F.2d 1521, 1528 (11th Cir.1987). We “liberally construe” the requirements of Rule 3, however, and “an appeal is not lost if a mistake is made in designating the judgment appealed from where it is clear that the overriding intent was effectively to appeal.” KH Outdoor, LLC v. City of Trussville, 465 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir.2006). Furthermore, we do not narrowly read the notice of appeal where the defect in the notice of appeal “did not mislead or prejudice the respondent.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181-82, 83 S.Ct. 227, 229-30, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) (<HOLDING>); Campbell v. Wainwright, 726 F.2d 702, 704
holding that when an appeal is properly taken from an underlying judgment the court of appeals has discretion to review a subsequent order denying a motion to vacate holding that appellate court had jurisdiction over claimants appeal from the denial of his motion for reconsideration separable from underlying judgment despite claimants failure to appeal from the underlying judgment because the reconsideration motion raised changes in the relevant medical criteria holding that the appellate court should have construed the notice of appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate the judgment as an attempt to appeal from the underlying judgment holding that an appeal from a denial of a rule 59e motion should have been construed as seeking review of the underlying judgment holding that appeal from denial of rule 60b motion raised for review only the district courts order of denial and not the underlying judgment itself