Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(citations omitted). B. Here, the district court denied Oleson’s motion to amend because the motion to amend was filed after the district court denied Oleson’s underlying § 2255 motion. Apparently, the district court believed that a Rule 15(a) motion cannot, as a matter of law, be brought after a § 2255 habeas motion is denied. To date, this Circuit has not recognized that principle as a rule of law. Rather, we have emphasized that Rule 15 seeks to ensure that cases are . decided on thei because it was filed more than one year after the June 15, 1995 entry of judgment, and more than one year after the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) became effective on April 24, 1996. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; see also United States v. Craycraft, 167 F.3d 451, 456 (8th Cir.1999) . Nor do other exceptions to the § 2255 statute
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in california the oneyear statute applies to a  1983 action
B. holding that the aedpa oneyear statute of limitations applies to amendments to  2255 motions
C. holding that the untimely petition in that case tolled the aedpa statute of limitations
D. holding that a district court has the authority to raise the aedpa statute of limitations on its own motion
E. holding that the aedpa statute of limitations is not jurisdictional
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.