With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or (4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In movant’s case, § 2255(1) and (3) provide the possible starting date for the one-year limitations period. The Third Circuit’s mandate affirming movant’s conviction and sentence was issued on January 19, 1996, and he did not petition for certiorari. As a result, movant’s conviction became final on April 24,1996, and he had until April 24, 1997 to file a timely § 2255 motion. See Kapral v. United States, 166 F.3d 565, 577 (3d Cir. 1999); United States v. Duffus, 174 F.3d 333, 335 (3d Cir.1999); Wilson v. Beard, 426 F.3d 653, 662-63 (3d Cir.2005)(<HOLDING>). Movant, however, did not file the instant §

A: holding that dismissal pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 56 did not violate the seventh amendment
B: holding that in california the oneyear statute applies to a  1983 action
C: holding that federal rule of civil procedure rule 6a applies to the calculation of the aed pas oneyear limitations period
D: holding that the aedpa oneyear statute of limitations applies to amendments to  2255 motions
C.