Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
otherwise time-barred proceedings when “a litigant’s failure to meet a legally mandated deadline unavoidably arose from circumstances beyond that litigant’s control.” Graham-Humphreys v. Memphis Brooks Museum of Art, 209 F.3d 552, 560-61 (6th Cir.2000). “Although equitable tolling is used sparingly by federal courts,” this court does grant such relief in appropriate circum stances. Johnson v. Hudson, 421 Fed.Appx. 568, 571 (6th Cir.2011). “[A] petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling only if he shows (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.” Holland, 130 S.Ct. at 2562 (internal quotations omitted); see also Hall v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst., 662 F.3d 745, 749-50 (6th Cir.2011) . In determining whether a petitioner meets
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that denial of an independent chemical test after defendant refused to submit to a policeadministered test did not violate due process
B. holding that jurisdiction exists if either the pluralitys test or kennedys test is met
C. holding that a defendants right to an independent blood alcohol test means the right to a test that is not subject to government manipulation
D. holding that holland test did not subsume but replaced prior equitabletolling test from andrews v orr 851 f2d 146 151 6th cir1988
E. recognizing that other courts have found the type of test reliable but finding that this particular urinalysis test was unreliable since the lab did not perform a backup test or identify lab test results and state left questions about how probationers diabetes affected the results
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.