With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Nor did Hatcher allege facts underlying a claim of constitutional error that would show by clear and convincing evidence that, but for the error, no reasonable fact finder would have found him guilty of the underlying offense. Id. Most importantly, however, Hatcher did not present a timely, cognizable claim in his habeas petition. Because he presented an untimely claim, no purpose would be served by inquiring into the defaulted claim by way of an evidentiary hearing. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. 1 . The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 2 . Nor did Hatcher's 1997 federal habeas petition toll the limitation period for his 1999 petition. See Duncan v. Walker, - U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 2120, 2128, 150 L.Ed.2d 251 (2001)

A: holding that the other collateral review provision of  2244d2 encompasses federal 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 statute of limitations period defined in 28 usc  2244d is subject to equitable tolling
D: holding that  2244d is subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases
B.