waiver under the rules of pleading and to comply with the court order, respondent had to plead the § 2244(d) statute of limitations defense. The § 2244(d) statute of limitations defense is an affirmative defense as opposed to a jurisdictional defect. See Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 705 (4th Cir.2002); Acosta v. Artuz, 221 F.3d 117, 122 (2d Cir.2000) (“The AEDPA statute of limitations is not jurisdictional, and nothing in the AEDPA or in the § 2254 Habeas Rules indicates that the burden of pleading the statute of limitations has been shifted from the respondent to the petitioner. The AEDPA statute of limitations is therefore an affirmative defense and compliance therewith need not be pleaded in the petition.”) (citations omitted); Kiser v. Johnson, 163 F.3d 326, 329 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); United States ex rel. Galvan v. Gilmore, 997
holding that the aedpa statute of limitations is not jurisdictional holding that the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense holding that the untimely petition in that case tolled the aedpa statute of limitations recognizing that the statute of limitations provision of the aedpa is an affirmative defenses rather than jurisdictional holding that a district court has the authority to raise the aedpa statute of limitations on its own motion