With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990) (footnotes omitted)); see also Young v. United States, 535 U.S. 43, 122 S.Ct. 1036, 1040, 152 L.Ed.2d 79 (2002) (“It is hornbook law that limitations periods are customarily subject to equitable tolling unless tolling would be inconsistent with the text of the relevant statute.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)). The Irwin Court noted, however, that courts are “less forgiving in receiving late filings where the claimant failed to exercise due diligence in preserving his legal rights,” or where there is “a garden variety claim of excusable neglect.” Irwin, 498 U.S. at 96, 111 S.Ct. 453 (internal citations omitted). This court has held that equitable tolling is available to toll the judicial appeal period of 38 U.S.C, § 7266. Jaquay, 304 F.3d at 1288-89 (<HOLDING>); Bailey v. West, 160 F.3d 1360, 1365

A: holding that duress toll to statute of limitations under state law had no application to federal rico statute of limitations
B: holding that a veteran who seeks redress of a claim and misfiles his or her request for reconsideration at the same varo from which the claim originated is entitled to toll the statute of limitations of 88 usc  7266
C: holding that absent a contrary congressional expression the court  would be entitled to toll the statute of limitations found in section 7266
D: holding that the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not toll the period for seeking judicial review of the underlying order
B.