Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
10, 2012: The Limitations Period Ran 134 Days The District Court determined that the limitations period ran throughout this interval. Thompson argues that the Court erred by failing to carve out a period between April 10, 2012 — when he filed an out-of-time motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court of New Jersey’s denial of his petition for certification — and May 25, 2012 — when the Supreme Court of New Jersey accepted his motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration as within time but simultaneously denied the motion for reconsideration. We agree.. The Supreme Court’s acceptance of Thompson’s motion as timely is “an important indication” that the motion was “properly filed.” Jenkins, 705 F.3d at 87; see also Fernandez v. Sternes, 227 F.3d 977, 979 (7th Cir. 2000) . Thus, we will exclude the time between the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision
B. holding that a federal court may excuse a state habeas petitioners procedural default if the petitioner can show cause for the failure to raise the claim and prejudice resulting from such failure
C. holding that if the state court addresses both the procedural default and the merits of a federal claim in the alternative a federal court should apply the state procedural bar and decline to reach the merits of the claim
D. holding that the tolling provision in  2244d2 covers the time between a lower state courts decision and the filing of a notice of appeal to a higher state court
E. holding that if a state court grants leave to pursue an out of time appeal the proper period of exclusion for  2244d purposes is all time between the filing of the request to excuse the default and the state courts decision on the merits if it elects to excuse the default
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.