Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Second Circuit described it, the day “when [the petitioner] was denied leave to appeal,” Geraci 211 F.3d at 9 (emphasis added). Second, the court noted that “[t]he coram nobis petition was denied on February 17, 1998 and the time clock started to run again .... until February 24, 1998, the day the [habe-as] petition was filed, a total of seven days.” Geraci 211 F.3d at 9. This calculation of “seven days” indicates that the court necessarily included either the date the coram nobis petition was denied or the date the habeas petition was filed. Upon consideration, it must have been the latter, because in determining whether a habeas petition is timely filed, a court must include the petition filing date within the limitations period. See Smith v. McGinnis, 208 F.3d 13, 16 (2d Cir.2000) . Geraci’s primary holding — that a coram nobis
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the habeas petition did not qualify for equitable tolling because the petitioner discovered that his attorney had lied about filing a petition in early 2008 and yet the petitioner did not file one himself until nearly two years later
B. holding that employer was estopped to assert a statute of limitations defense where the insurer had arranged to have the claimant examined by one of its physicians after the statute of limitations had run
C. holding that where the limitations period had run for 364 days petitioner had one day remaining  in which to file the  habeas petition
D. holding that the limitations period is not tolled while a federal habeas petition is pending
E. holding that dismissing a habeas petition as timebarred under the aedpa does not violate the suspension clause because petitioner had years to file the petition and gave no explanation why he failed to file on time
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.