With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". such as a simple miscalculation that leads a lawyer to miss a filing deadline, does not warrant equitable tolling,” id. at 2564 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), the Eleventh Circuit erred in concluding that “ ‘pure professional negligence’ on the part of a petitioner’s attorney ... can never constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ ” sufficient to justify equitable tolling, id. at 2559 (quoting Helton v. Sec’y for Dep’t of Corrs., 259 F.3d 1310, 1312 (11th Cir.2001); cf. Smaldone v. Senkowski, 273 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir.2001)) (stating that attorney error alone is “inadequate to create the ‘extraordinary’ circumstances equitable tolling requires”); Geraci v. Senkowski, 211 F.3d 6, 9 (2d Cir.2000), superseded by statute on other grounds, N.Y.Crim. Proc. Law § 450.90(1) (<HOLDING>). As the Supreme Court has long recognized, the

A: holding that attorneys misunderstanding of the period for which a claim remained pending did not warrant equitable tolling
B: holding that attorney miscalculation of aedpa time period did not justify equitable tolling
C: holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling
D: recognizing that equitable tolling doctrines may toll the time period for filing
A.