With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". tolling is unavailable to suspend the running of the Rule 32.2(c) limitations period. Ward appears to be correct that this Court has never addressed this issue. “Although we today hold that the limitations provision in Rule 32.2(c) is not a jurisdictional bar, it is nonetheless written in mandatory terms. Rule 32.2(c) provides that ‘the court shall not entertain any petition for relief from a conviction or sentence’ that is not timely. In prior cases in which it concluded that equitable tolling is unavailable, the Court of Criminal Appeals based its holding on the mandatory ‘shall’ language found in Rule 32.2(c) and the fact that no Alabama court has ever held that there is an exception to the limitations period. See, e.g., Arthur v. State, 820 So.2d 886, 889-90 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) (<HOLDING>). However, this Court has never held that

A: holding that there is no spousal exception to the statute
B: holding that there is no exception to rule 322c and that the limitations period is jurisdictional
C: holding that oneyear limitations period set forth in  2255 is not a jurisdictional bar and is thus subject to equitable tolling
D: holding that the courts statute of limitations is jurisdictional in nature and is thus not subject to waiver or estoppel
B.