to articulate its interpretation as to how the AEDPA should be applied to a petitioner whose conviction be came final prior to April 24, 1996, the effective date of the Act. I. ANALYSIS A. What Constitutes a “Reasonable Period of Time’’ As Magistrate Judge Collings’ report notes, the application of the new one-year statute of limitations imposed by the Act raises difficult and novel legal questions. Although it is clear that Congress intended the new limitations period to apply to convictions that had become final prior to the effective date of the Act, H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 104-518, at 111 (1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 994, 994, a statute of limitations which retroactively bars petitions would obviously be unconstitutional. See Reyes v. Keane, 90 F.3d 676, 679 (2d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court has long recognized that
holding erisa plan interpretation is simply one of contract interpretation holding an administrative interpretation cannot change the meaning of a statute or control the courts interpretation of it holding that unfair scrutiny was not sufficiently severe to result in a finding that an objectively hostile or abusive work environment existed holding that once one severe impairment is found the combined effect of all impairments must be considered even if other impairments would not be severe holding that such an interpretation would be entirely unfair and a severe instance of retroactivity