Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and the time limitation should be tolled for the 170 days when the application was out of his hands. We disagree. As the district court convincingly noted: “Mr. Marsh chose to rely upon assistance from the prison legal access attorney and an inmate law clerk despite the fact that he was raising in the state courts only the unexhausted claims he already had raised in federal court.” R. doc. 11, at 5-6. The fact that an inmate law clerk was assisting in drafting the state petition does not relieve Mr. Marsh from the personal responsibility of complying with the law. See Henderson v. Johnson, 1 F.Supp.2d 650, 655 (N.D.Tex.1998) (noting that although inmate had received assistance from fellow inmate, he could have filed the petition himself at any time); see also Steed, 219 F.3d 1298, 1300 . Finally, Mr. Marsh asserts that between the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that equitable tolling of the time to file a notice of appeal is not permitted
B. recognizing that equitable tolling doctrines may toll the time period for filing
C. holding that attorneys mental illness may justify equitable tolling
D. holding that attorney miscalculation of aedpa time period did not justify equitable tolling
E. holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.