In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

him from filing his petition on time. To be eligible for equitable tolling, a petitioner must “demonstrate a causal relationship between the extraordinary circumstances on which the claim for equitable tolling rests and the lateness of his filing, a demonstration that cannot be made if the petitioner, acting with reasonable diligence, could have filed on time notwithstanding the extraordinary circumstances.” Valverde, 224 F.3d at 134. The district court observed that Rivera still had a couple of weeks to file before his § 2255 motion was due once he received the requested documents. The court acted within its discretion in concluding that this was enough time for Rivera to have filed a timely, even if unpolished, petition. See Belot v. Burge, 490 F.3d 201, 207-08 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). [2] The district court did not abuse its 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that it was within the courts reasonable discretion to conclude that a petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling because he ought reasonably to have begun his preparation earlier and filed an unpolished  but timely  petition rather than wait to file his more polished petition until the week that the deadline expired  internal quotation marks and alterations omitted (B) holding equitable tolling was not warranted where counsel misadvised client as to the deadline to file a habeas petition (C) holding that a petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling where he waited six months to file a federal petition after any state misconduct ended (D) holding that the petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling where he filed his habeas petition more than two months late (E) 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
(A)