With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was unlawfully obtained. The court therefore recommended to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that relief be granted. (Conclusion of Law # 13, at 20). Of the state district court’s fifteen conclusions of law, only these three were rejected by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ one-page majority opinion. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals adopted the state district court’s findings of fact in toto. The case is now before this Court. Contrary to the state’s contentions, this case is governed by pre-Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AED-PA”) of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), habeas corpus standards because Burdine’s petition was filed before April 24, 1996. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Felder v. Johnson, 180 F.3d 206, 209 (5th

A: 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
B: holding that the aedpa oneyear statute of limitations applies to amendments to  2255 motions
C: holding that aedpa amendments to  2254 apply only to such cases as were filed after the statutes enactment
D: recognizing that aedpa would not apply to a habeas petition that was pending at the time of its enactment
C.