With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 153, 959 P.2d 311 (1998)). Although this is not a dispositive statement of consideration on the merits, and consideration on the merits does not “decide the question” of whether the petition was timely, it is a factor we consider. See Evans, 546 U.S. at 194, 126 S.Ct. 846 (explaining that we may consider whether the California Supreme Court considered a matter on the merits, but not take such consideration as “an absolute bellwether” on the timeliness question). Second, Maxwell has offered a compelling justification for his delay in filing his second state petition. Under California law, a petitioner must provide an explanation for any significant delay in applying for habeas relief. In re Clark, 21 Cal. Rptr.2d 509, 855 P.2d at 738; see also Evans, 546 U.S. at 201, 126 S.Ct. 846 (<HOLDING>); Chaffer, 592 F.3d at 1048 (denying a petition

A: holding that twoyear delay was not reasonable
B: holding that a six month delay was unreasonable
C: holding that a 15month delay of which four months were unexplained was reasonable in a felony prosecution
D: holding that petitioners unexplained hence unjustified delay of at least six months was not reasonable for purposes of california law
D.