With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". days before his fifty-six-day appeals period ended on February 8. Id. at 700. The clerk did not receive the application until February 9. Ibid. Because Michigan does not recognize the prisoner mailbox rule, the Michigan Supreme Court dismissed the application as time-barred. White, 42 Fed.Appx. at 700. Had the Michigan court accepted the application in compliance with the federal prisoner mailbox rule, the prisoner’s federal petition for writ of habeas corpus would have been timely. Id. at 699. We held that equitable tolling should apply because of “the apparent justice in granting a state appellant the equitable benefit of the federally-accepted ‘mailbox rule’ for purposes of tolling a federal statute of limitations.” Id. at 701; see also Burger v. Scott, 317 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, we believe it is appropriate to

A: holding that aedpa statute of limitations was tolled during fourmonth delay between date petitioner delivered state habeas petition to prison officials and date petition was stamped as filed in state court even though oklahoma did not apply prisoner mailbox rule
B: holding that when a plaintiff misnames a defendant limitations is tolled and a subsequent amendment of the petition relates back to the date of the original petition
C: holding that the untimely petition in that case tolled the aedpa statute of limitations
D: holding that petition was properly filed even though the state court denied it as procedurally barred because the petition was delivered to and accepted by the state court
A.