With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". diligence. Appellant cannot carry his burden of establishing the propriety of equitable tolling in this case. Appellant’s first motion for post-conviction relief was defective because he failed to sign it. He has not, moreover, offered any evidence suggesting he attempted to ascertain the status of that motion during the seven months it sat on the state court’s docket before being dismissed. In short, Appellant failed to act diligently, and the untimeliness of his petition was due to circumstances within his control. As a result, the district court did not err in finding Appellant’s defective motion for post-conviction relief did not equitably toll the limitations period on his petition. See Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96, 111 S.Ct. 453, 458, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990) (<HOLDING>). IV. Because Appellant’s petition challenged

A: holding that equitable tolling of the time to file a notice of appeal is not permitted
B: holding the principles of equitable tolling  do not extend to what is at best a garden variety claim of excusable neglect
C: holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling
D: holding tolling principles do not apply because the purpose of the statute of repose is clearly to serve as a cutoff
B.