Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
date of April 24, 1996, are given a one-year grace period in which to file their habeas petitions, that is, until April 24, 1997. See Ross v. Artuz, 150 F.3d 97, 103 (2d Cir.1998). Moreover, the grace period will be tolled while “a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent claim or judgment is pending.” 28 U.S .C. § 2244(d)(2). Specifically, “a state court petition is ‘pending’ from the time it ís first filed until finally disposed of and further appellate review is unavailable under the particular state’s procedures.” Bennett v. Artuz, 199 F.3d 116, 120 (2d Cir.1999), aff'd on other grounds, 531 U.S. 4, 121 S.Ct. 361, 148 L.Ed.2d 213 (U.S. 2000); see also Smith v. McGinnis, 208 F.3d 13, 17 (2d Cir.) (per curiam) , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 840, 121 S.Ct. 104,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the statute of limitations period begins to run when the allegedly discriminatory pension plan is applied to the plaintiffs and leaving determination of the actual date the statute begins to run on each claim to the district court
B. holding that the tolling provision excludes time during which properly filed state relief applications are pending but does not reset the date from which the oneyear statute of limitations begins to run
C. holding that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the alleged malpractice is discovered
D. holding that the oneyear period begins to run when the mandate of the court of appeals issues
E. holding the sixyear limitations period begins to run upon date that payment is made
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.