With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". absence of fault or negligence on the part of defendant; and (5) the absence of any adequate remedy at law. Hess cannot satisfy these requirements— especially (3) and (4). There was no fraud alleged in this case, and this court has only awarded relief “on the ground of mistake ... where mutual mistake is shown and where the party seeking relief is without fault or negligence in the premises.” Hess was also negligent in failing to pursue his remedies on direct appeal. V For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s grant of the writ of habeas corpus is VACATED. Hess’ motions to dismiss his counsel, appoint substitute counsel, appear pro se, and for an out-of-time appeal are all DENIED; and Appellant’s motion to supplement the record is DENIED AS MOOT. 1 . 135 F.3d 1000 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). 2 . 154 F.3d 196 (5th Cir.1998). 3 . Id. at

A: holding that prisoners had one year from the effective date of aedpa april 24 1996 to file their habeas petitions before they could be considered timebarred by the operation of  2244d1
B: holding that prisoners whose convictions became final on or before april 24 1996 must file their  2255 motions before april 24 1997
C: holding that in general aedpa applies only to habeas petitions filed after the statutes effective date of april 24 1996 and noting that aedpas special procedures for 28 usc  2254 petitions in capital cases apply also to petitions pending on april 24 1996
D: holding that habeas petitions challenging judgments of conviction that became final before the effective date of the aedpa are not time barred if filed within one year from aedpas effective date april 241996
A.