With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to habeas corpus petitions by state prisoners. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) (West Supp.2004). Lenz argues that he should have the remainder of this period, or until March 1, 2005, to actually file his petition in this court. However, Lenz has already invoked the jurisdiction of this court and the court thus has the power and responsibility to administer this litigation. While it is true that Lenz’s looming execution date required him to seek the court’s protection before the one-year period had elapsed, it is often the case that practicalities prompt a claimant to file a legal action long before the statute of limitations might run. In these circumstances, Lenz is no different from other litigants. See Dowthitt v. Johnson, No. H-98-3282, 1998 WL 1986954, at *1 (S.D.Tex. Dec. 2, 1998) (<HOLDING>). Lenz’s appointed counsel has alternatively

A: holding that the limitations period is not tolled while a federal habeas petition is pending
B: holding that federal rule of civil procedure rule 6a applies to the calculation of the aedpas oneyear limitations period
C: holding that the oneyear statute of limitations for filing a habeas petition under the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 is not jurisdictional
D: holding that aedpas oneyear period of limitations does not support a delay of filing of habeas petition by capital defendant
D.