With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". n. 21, 102 S.Ct. 781, 791 n. 21, 70 L.Ed.2d 738 (1982) (quoting Wilson v. Iseminger, 185 U.S. 55, 62-63, 22 S.Ct. 573, 575-76, 46 L.Ed. 804 (1902)). See also, Derstein v. Van Buren, 828 F.2d 653, 655 (10th Cir.1987) (refusing to retroactively apply new limitations period where new time period had already expired); Hanner v. Mississippi, 833 F.2d 55, 57 (5th Cir.1987) (shortened limitation period barring pre-accrued claims must first provide plaintiffs with a “reasonable time” to file); Anton v. Lehpamer, 787 F.2d 1141, 1146 (7th Cir.1986) (allowing two-year grace period to avoid unfair application of new limitations period). Applying the amended statute of limitations to Mr. Simmonds’ § 2255 motion would be “entirely unfair and a severe instance of retroactivity.” Reyes, 90 F.3d at 679 (<HOLDING>); See also, Lindh v. Murphy, 96 F.3d 856, 866

A: holding statute of limitations period defined in 28 usc  2244d is subject to equitable tolling
B: holding new time period of 28 usc  2244d inapplicable to pending habeas petition where period ended before amendments effective date
C: holding that the limitations period is not tolled while a federal habeas petition is pending
D: holding that the oneyear statute of limitations set out in 28 usc  2244d applies to  2241 petitions
B.