jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The government argues that Herrera waived her right to appeal her conviction because she did not check the little box next to the word “conviction” on the notice of appeal form. We reject this argument. Herrera’s opening brief to this court clearly indicates her intent to appeal her conviction, and Herrera’s failure to designate specifically in her notice of appeal that she intended to challenge both her conviction and sentence did not prejudice the government. United States v. Shin, 953 F.2d 559, 560 (9th Cir.1992). Accordingly, we turn to the merits of Herrera’s challenges of her conviction and sentence. Herrera’s challenge of the district court’s evidentiary rulings is unpersuasive. See United States v. Childs, 5 F.3d 1328, 1333 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the challenged business records
holding that documents that were not created by but that were received maintained and relied upon by a business are business records under  8036 holding that gradecrossing accident reports prepared by a railroad were not business records because they were not prepared for the systematic conduct of the enterprise as a railroad business rather the reports are calculated for use essentially in the court not in the business their primary utility is in litigating not in railroading holding that municipal court records were admissible under  official records or public documents  exception holding that documents that are created in the ordinary course of business or would have been created irrespective of litigation are not protected by the work product doctrine holding that affiant sufficiently authenticated records under georgias new evidence code when she after setting out her role and personal access to and knowledge of the records created and maintained by the appellee in the ordinary course of business and the appellees acquisition of the documents through a transfer referenced and authenticated the various documents attached to her affidavit as exhibits