With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". stood in his way.’ ” Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2563, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010) (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005)). Weddington’s convictions were final September 7, 2006, when the time to seek certiorari in the Supreme Court expired. On February 12, 2007, 158 days later, he filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief in state court. (The district court and respondent erred in finding that he filed his petition 127 days later.) The limitations period was tolled while that petition was pending. On May 12, 2009, the trial court denied his post-conviction petition, and the federal habeas limitations period ran on Monday, December 9, 2009. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a). Weddington’s petitio 21, 1124-27 (10th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). The state maintains that Weddington offers

A: holding that a corrections officers confiscation of a prisoners draft habeas petition and related legal papers can justify equitable tolling of the oneyear limitations period
B: holding that mental incapacity is an extraordinary circumstance that may warrant equitable tolling
C: holding that prisons complete confiscation of petitioners legal materials six weeks before filing deadline and its holding of papers until after limitations period expired constituted an extraordinary circumstance for purposes of equitable tolling
D: holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling
C.