With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". not use the benefit of hindsight to second-guess tactical decisions made by an attorney unless they are unreasonable.... Moreover, the mere fact that a tactic has been unsuccessful does not necessarily indicate that it was unreasonable.”). 28 . Petitioner's conviction became final on March 24, 2003, when the Supreme Court denied his writ of certiorari. 29 . United. States v. Duffus, 174 F.3d 333, 338 (3d Cir.1999) (affirming district court's denial of motion to amend petition outside of one-year statute of limitations to add new claims, stating that "[a] prisoner should not be able to assert a claim otherwise barred by the statute of limitations merely because he asserted a separate claim within the limitations period.”). 30 . United States v. Thomas, 221 F.3d 430, 436 (3d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>) 31 . Duffus, 174 F.3d at 337. 32 . United

A: holding that federal rule of civil procedure 15c2 giving court discretion to permit amendment of complaint applies to  2255 petitions insofar as a district court may in its discretion permit an amendment to a petition to provide factual clarification or amplification after the expiration of the oneyear period of limitations as long as the petition itself was timely filed and the petitioner does not seek to add an entirely new claim or new theory of relief
B: holding that since defendant failed to timely remove the original complaint which was removable based on federal question jurisdiction defendant thereby waived its right to file a subsequent removal even though the complaint was amended to add a new federal claim where the amendment to the complaint did not change the nature of the action so as to constitute a substantially new suit since the new allegations and claims were not substantially different from those in the original complaint
C: holding that federal rule of civil procedure rule 6a applies to the calculation of the aedpas oneyear limitations period
D: recognizing that a court can exercise its discretion not to award costs to a prevailing party as long as the court states its reasons for refusing to permit the award
A.