With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 498 U.S. 89, 95-96 (1990)). Based on the presumption, application of the doctrine turns on the answer to the query: “Is there good reason to believe that Congress did not want the equitable tolling doctrine to apply?” (Emphasis in original.) United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347, 350 (1997) (citing Irwin, 498 U.S. 89). Congress is presumed to draft limitations periods in light of this presumption (Young v. United States, 535 U.S. 43, 49-50 (2002)), which operates in suits against private parties, as well as in suits against the federal government {Irwin, 498 U.S. at 95-96). Equitable tolling is not applied exclusively to tradi tional limitation periods for filing suit. The doctrine has also been applied to other statutory and administrative deadlines. See, e.g., Young, 535 U.S. at 47 (<HOLDING>); Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S.

A: recognizing that equitable tolling doctrines may toll the time period for filing
B: holding that attorneys misunderstanding of the period for which a claim remained pending did not warrant equitable tolling
C: holding that the bankruptcy codes threeyear lookback period which prescribes a period in which certain rights may be enforced is subject to equitable tolling
D: holding statute of limitations period defined in 28 usc  2244d is subject to equitable tolling
C.