Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
habeas petition was untimely, it cannot satisfy the requirement of a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and we therefore deny the motion for a COA. 1 . We need not consider whether the interval tolled by the section 440.10 proceeding is the entire time from initial filing of the motion in the State trial court until denial by the Appellate Division of leave to appeal from the denial of reconsideration, or only the time during which proceedings on the section 440.10 motion were actually pending before the State trial court and the Appellate Division. Compare Bennett v. Artuz, 199 F.3d 116, 119-20 (2d Cir.1999) (dictum stating that entire interval tolls AEDPA limitations period), with Robinson v. Ricks, 163 F.Supp.2d 155 (E.D.N.Y. 2001) ; see also Hizbullahankhamon v. Walker, 255
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that properly filed application for statecourt discretionary review tolls aedpa limitations period
B. holding that the aedpa statute of limitations is not jurisdictional
C. holding only intervals in which proceeding or appeal is actually pending toll aedpa limitations period
D. holding that aedpa is not applied retroactively to pending habeas petitions
E. holding that the limitations period is not tolled while a federal habeas petition is pending
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.