With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". show that he is a “member in good standing” in the New Mexico State Bar before he may be admitted to practice in this Court. He was also given notice by the Order to Show Cause and at the August 7, 2012 hearing that he had to present more than just evidence that he was on probationary status as grounds for readmission. Mr. Klipstine had ample opportunity at the hearing to establish the ground of good standing in the state bar, but he is legally unable to do so. Therefore, the Court will deny his petition for readmission without prejudice to its refiling if, and when, Mr. Klipstine has successfully fulfilled his two-year period of probation and has been formally reinstated as a member in good standing in the New Mexico State Bar. See In re Smith, 329 Fed.Appx. 805, 808 (10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). IV. Concerns about Mr. Klipstine’s behavior

A: holding that the oneyear bar contained in  2255 acts as an affirmative defense and not a jurisdictional bar
B: holding that a state procedural default will not bar consideration of a federal claim on habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment clearly and expressly stated that its judgment rested on a state procedural bar
C: holding that the district court could properly deny attorneys readmission on the ground that he had not been readmitted to the bar of the state of new york
D: holding that the district court  did not abuse its discretion in denying his petition for reinstatement where membership in good standing in the state bar was required before attorney could be admitted to the federal bar and applicant had not been readmitted to state bar
D.