With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". claim for equitable tolling, which we review for an abuse of discretion. Fleming v. Evans, 481 F.3d 1249, 1254 (10th Cir.2007). After carefully reviewing Petitioner’s filings and the record on appeal, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate whether the district court erred in dismissing Petitioner’s claims without granting Petitioner the benefit of equitable tolling. The district court correctly noted — as Petitioner admits in his brief — that the crux of Petitioner’s equitable tolling argument is his reliance on his attorney’s miscalculation of a filing deadline. On this, the law is clear. Equitable tolling may be applied when the attorney misrepresents a filing deadline in a particularly egregious way, see United States v. Martin, 408 F.3d 1089, 1094-95 (8th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>), or deliberately hides information from his

A: holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client  where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client
B: holding equitable tolling was not warranted where counsel misadvised client as to the deadline to file a habeas petition
C: holding that when an attorney represents multiple clients and a dispute between the attorney and one client later occurs there is a waiver of the privilege but only by the client asserting the liability
D: holding that equitable tolling applied when the attorney informed his client there was no such thing as a oneyear filing deadline and consistently lied to his client and the clients wife
D.