Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
while the federal habeas corpus petition was pending, Petitioner filed a second PCRA petition, raising a single claim based on Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), which held that execution of mentally retarded criminals violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The PCRA court dismissed Appellee’s second PCRA petition without a hearing because Appellee’s federal habeas corpus petition was pending. Appellee appealed to our Court, requesting a remand to the PCRA court on his Atkins claim. The Commonwealth did not oppose Appellee’s request. On October 21, 2003, this Court reversed the PCRA court’s order and remanded for further PCRA proceedings, citing Commonwealth v. Whitney, 572 Pa. 468, 817 A.2d 473 (2003) . Commonwealth v. Hackett, 575 Pa. 49, 834 A.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that because an untimely pcra petition was premised on claims that were cognizable under the pcra the statutory writ of habeas corpus was unavailable
B. holding that the plain meaning of  2244d2 is that the statute of limitations is tolled during the pendency of any properly filed federal habeas corpus petition
C. holding that section 236e does not strip the court of jurisdiction to consider the merits of petitioners habeas corpus petition
D. holding that the pendency of a petitioners federal habeas corpus petition does not divest a trial court of jurisdiction to address a pcra petition
E. holding that a federal district court has jurisdiction to stay an execution prior to the filing of a formal habeas corpus petition
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.