With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". has neither lodged a cross-appeal nor obtained a certificate of appealability from the district court on this issue. The district court stayed the grant of the writ of habeas corpus pending this appeal. II. Standard of Review This Court reviews a district court’s decision to grant habeas corpus relief de novo. Lucas v. O’Dea, 179 F.3d 412, 416 (6th Cir.1999). We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error. Id.; Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436 (6th Cir.1999). Because the Petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the effective date of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), our review of the decisions of the state trial and appellate courts is governed by AEDPA. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 323, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Barker v. Yukins, 199 F.3d 867, 871 (6th

A: holding aedpa applicable to petition filed on or after aedpas effective date
B: holding that petitioners whose convictions became final before the enactment of aedpa had a oneyear grace period after aedpas effective date to file their federal habeas petitions
C: holding that in general aedpas provisions apply to cases filed after its effective date
D: holding that habeas petitions challenging judgments of conviction that became final before the effective date of the aedpa are not time barred if filed within one year from aedpas effective date april 241996
A.