Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to appeal on August 30, 2005. The petitioner’s conviction ther to file his habeas petition. The petitioner filed his habeas petition on June 23, 2008, within that time frame. But to toll the one-year habeas statute, a post-conviction motion must be “properly filed,” see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), and the respondent contends that the petitioner’s application for leave to appeal the trial court’s denial of the post-conviction motion was not properly filed because it was not submitted within 21 days. However, the petitioner filed a delayed application within the time allowed by the state court rules. See Mich. Ct. R. 7.205(F). In Matthews v. Abramajtys, 319 F.3d 780 (6th Cir.2003), the Sixth Circuit, applying Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 219-21, 122 S.Ct. 2134, 153 L.Ed.2d 260 (2002) , held that the gap between the trial court’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. 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
B. 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
C. holding that the other collateral review provision of  2244d2 encompasses federal review
D. holding that equitable tolling of the time to file a notice of appeal is not permitted
E. holding that the filing of an opening brief within the time period for filing a notice of appeal could constitute notice of appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.