With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". — So.2d —, — (Ala.Crim.App.2007), the Alabama Supreme Court addressed the le tolling is not available in a case such as this one. Moreover, because Rule 32.2(c) does not establish a jurisdictional bar, the trial court has the power to hear an untimely petition because the running of the limitations period would ‘not divest the circuit court of the power to try the case.’ Ex parte Seymour, 946 So.2d 536, 539 (Ala.2006). “Further, as Ward points out, under federal habeas corpus practice, the federal courts have held that equitable tolling is available for a § 2244 petition, notwithstanding that the word ‘shall’ appears in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (establishing procedures for petitions for the writ of habeas corpus). See, e.g., Baldayaque v. United States, 338 F.3d 145, 153 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th

A: holding that equitable tolling under  2255 would be allowed if at all only for extraordinary circumstances
B: holding that equitable tolling may be available where the attorneys behavior was outrageous or the attorneys incompetence was extraordinary
C: holding that where client was abandoned by attorney due to attorneys mental illness equitable tolling may be appropriate
D: holding that attorneys mental illness may justify equitable tolling
B.