With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was signed and deemed filed on February 2, 2011. Thus, his federal habeas petition was untimely. According to Weddington, the district court erred in dismissing his petition because the limitations period should have been equitably tolled by the state’s confiscation of his legal papers. The state responds that the record fails to support his contention. Its argument against equitable tolling, on appeal as in the district court, is based solely on its challenge as to whether Weddington was prohibited access to his legal materials while he was housed in disciplinary segregation. “The intentional confiscation of a prisoner’s ha-beas corpus petition and related legal papers by a corrections officer is ‘extraordinary’ as a matter of law.” Valverde v. Stinson, 224 F.3d 129, 133 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Gabaldon, 522 F.3d

A: holding that a corrections officers confiscation of a prisoners draft habeas petition and related legal papers can justify equitable tolling of the oneyear limitations period
B: holding that attorney miscalculation of aedpa time period did not justify equitable tolling
C: holding that aedpas oneyear period of limitations does not support a delay of filing of habeas petition by capital defendant
D: holding that prisons complete confiscation of petitioners legal materials six weeks before filing deadline and its holding of papers until after limitations period expired constituted an extraordinary circumstance for purposes of equitable tolling
A.