Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
130 S.Ct. at 2565 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), and we have repeatedly emphasized that equitable tolling is not available to “those who sleep on them rights,” see, e.g., Covey v. Ark. River Co., 865 F.2d 660, 662 (5th Cir.1989). Giving Wickware all benefit of the doubt, equitable tolling still would not help him. Even if we fictionally extend the benefit of § 2244(d)(2) to his improperly filed petition and discount the entire period of time from Wickware’s original filing of his state habeas application on August 29, 2003, and the TCCA’s ruling on the merits of Wickware’s second application on April 4, 2007, Wickware would fail to meet the AEDPA time limits. Wickware’s conviction became final for AEDPA purposes on Decembe , 599 (5th Cir.2009) (per curiam) ; Webb v. Dretke, 165 Fed.Appx. 375, 376 (5th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that petition was properly filed even though the state court denied it as procedurally barred because the petition was delivered to and accepted by the state court
B. holding that the petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling where he filed his habeas petition more than two months late
C. holding that trial court erred in granting petition for termination of parental rights based on noncompliance with case plan when case plan was not filed and approved by the court until seven months after petition for termination was filed
D. holding that petitioner was dili gent for equitable tolling purposes where petitioner filed state petition two months after conviction was final and filed federal petition seven days after discovering state had denied petition on the merits
E. holding that a petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling where he waited six months to file a federal petition after any state misconduct ended
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.