Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Chavis’s first state habeas petitions, filed in 1993 and 1994, did not toll the one-year statute, since AEDPA was not enacted until 1996. The district court erred. A “state habeas petition filed before the AEDPA statute of limitations begins to run tolls the limitation period.” Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 482 (9th Cir.2001) (citing Tillema v. Long, 253 F.3d 494 (9th Cir.2001)). A habeas petition is considered pending during one full round of state review, which in California includes petitions filed in Superior Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. Nino, 183 F.3d at 1005-06. As long as the petitions are properly filed, a habeas petitioner is also entitled to tolling during subsequent rounds of state review. See King v. Roe, 340 F.3d 821, 823 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Dils v. Small, 260 F.3d 984, 985-86 (9th 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that a habeas petitioner may be entitled to tolling during a second round of petitions but holding that the statute is not tolled between rounds (B) holding that overlapping petitions do not affect tolling during the time petitioner is seeking one full round of review (C) holding that second and third state habeas petitions that were dismissed as impermissible successive petitions were properly filed (D) holding that tolling of the statute of limitations was not tolled during the pendency of a claim dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution (E) holding that overlapping state habeas petitions begin a separate round of review and do not disturb the pendency of petitioners first round of review
Output (English): holding that tolling of the statute of limitations was not tolled during the pendency of a claim dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution