Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
for a writ of certiorari passed without Spencer requesting Supreme Court review. See United States v. Burch, 202 F.3d 1274, 1278 (10th Cir.2000). Because, according to the district court, Spencer’s conviction became final on November 9, 2006, he had until November 9, 2007 to file his § 2255 motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). As Spencer did not file that motion until December 10, 2007, the district court concluded the motion was untimely unless Spencer was entitled to have the limitations period equitably tolled. Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799, 808 (10th Cir.2000). Because Spencer had failed to demonstrate he had diligently pursued the claims in his § 2255 motion, the district court exercised its discretion and denied equitable tolling. Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217, 1220 (10th Cir.2000) . The granting of a COA is a jurisdictional
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that equitable tolling is available when a movant untimely files because of extraordinary circumstances that are both beyond his control and unavoidable even with diligence
B. holding that equitable tolling is only available when an inmate diligently pursues his claims and demonstrates that the failure to timely file was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond his control
C. holding that lack of knowledge of state court decision may provide basis for equitable tolling when prisoner acts diligently
D. holding that ejquitable tolling is appropriate when a movant untimely files because of extraordinary circumstances that are both beyond his control and unavoidable even with diligence
E. holding that equitable tolling under  2255 would be allowed if at all only for extraordinary circumstances
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.