With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 31, 2002; he then waited approximately eight months before filing his first state habeas application. After the TCCA ruled on the merits of his second application, Wickware waited another six months before filing his federal petition, giving Wickware the equivalent of at least fourteen total months of AEDPA time even accepting his argument for equitable tolling and subtracting the entire timeframe of the state court habeas proceedings. Wickware nowhere offers any colorable explanation for his delay in filing his state application in the first instance or in filing his federal application after the TCCA’s ruling on the merits. Even giving him all benefit of the doubt on this argument, then, Wickware’s federal petition is untimely. See Coleman v. Johnson, 184 F.3d 398, 403 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); see also Hardy v. Quarterman, 577 F.3d 596,

A: holding that equitable tolling did not apply in part because petitioner waited three months after his pcra appeal was denied before attempting to secure the habeas forms
B: holding that a petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling where he waited six months to file a federal petition after any state misconduct ended
C: holding that petitioner was entitled to equitable tolling where former counsel actively deceived petitioner over several months into believing he was diligently pursuing petitioners legal remedies when in fact he was not
D: holding that petitioner was dili gent for equitable tolling purposes where petitioner filed state petition two months after conviction was final and filed federal petition seven days after discovering state had denied petition on the merits
B.