With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 118 S.Ct. 1533, 140 L.Ed.2d 683 (1998). The Ninth Circuit opinion, and the opinions referenced in it, set forth this case’s lengthy factual and procedural history; there is no need to detail it here except to note that Poland did not raise an incompetency-to-be-executed claim in the prior habeas petition. On October 20, 1998, Poland raised a Ford claim by attempting to amend his previously-dismissed petition. Rather than allowing him to so amend, the Court construed the amendment as a new peti tion not subject to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996’s (“AEDPA’s”) requirement of obtaining permission from a court of appeals before filing a second or successive habeas application. See Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 118 S.Ct. 1618, 140 L.Ed.2d 849 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Martinez-Villareal dealt with a situation

A: recognizing exception to aedpas gatekeeping requirement in 28 usc  2244b3c for certain claims that could not have been adjudicated in prior habeas petitions
B: holding that equitable tolling is available for petitions filed pursuant to 28 usc  2255
C: holding sum certain requirement of 28 cfr 142a applies to 28 usc  2675
D: holding that in general aedpa applies only to habeas petitions filed after the statutes effective date of april 24 1996 and noting that aedpas special procedures for 28 usc  2254 petitions in capital cases apply also to petitions pending on april 24 1996
A.