Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that he would therefore be entitled to tolling. Second, Waldron-Ramsey argues that even if he had known his state petition was untimely, he believed in 1997 and 1998 that an untimely petition would still be considered “properly filed” under AED-PA and would toll the AEDPA statute of limitations. The Supreme Court foreclosed this interpretation in 2005, holding that an untimely state petition does not toll the AEDPA statute of limitations. See Pace, 544 U.S. at 417, 125 S.Ct. 1807. Waldron-Ramsey points out that we did adopt his reading — that even an untimely state petition can be deemed “properly filed” so as to toll the AEDPA statute of limitations — ■ in 2001, before the issue was finally decided by the Supreme Court in Pace. See Dictado v. Ducharme, 244 F.3d 724, 728 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). However, Dictado was decided years after 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the limitations period is not tolled while a federal habeas petition is pending (B) holding that a district court has the authority to raise the aedpa statute of limitations on its own motion (C) holding that the aedpa statute of limitations is not jurisdictional (D) holding that the untimely petition in that case tolled the aedpa statute of limitations (E) holding that the aedpa statute of limitations was tolled for the entire period during which saffold pursued state habeas relief including the time between filings
Output (English): holding that the aedpa statute of limitations was tolled for the entire period during which saffold pursued state habeas relief including the time between filings