With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". habeas petition began to run on April 24, 1996. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); see also Hoggro v. Boone, 150 F.3d 1223, 1225 (10th Cir.1998). Eighty-four days had elapsed before his first federal' habeas was filed on July 18, 1996. The district court held that the statute should be tolled during the time the federal habeas petition was pending. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) (requiring tolling during the pendency of applications for “State post-conviction or other collateral review ” (emphasis added)). The question of whether the tolling provisions of § 2244(d)(2) apply to federal ha- beas petitions is a matter of first impression in this circuit. We note that the two circuits to have previously addressed this issue came to opposite conclusions. See Walker v. Artuz, 208 F.3d 357 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); see also Barrett v. Yearwood, 63 F.Supp.2d

A: holding that apprendi does not apply on collateral review
B: holding that the filing of a first federal habeas petition is not an application for other collateral review under the tolling provision of  2244d
C: holding that the other collateral review provision of  2244d2 encompasses federal review
D: holding that review of counsel ineffectiveness claims should be deferred until collateral review
C.