The Court agrees that the controlling provision is (D). Clearly, (B) and (C) have no applicability in the instant case. In addition, (A) appears inapplicable given the Ninth Circuit's holding in Redd v. McGrath, 343 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2003) ("agree[ing] the word 'judgment' in subparagraph (A) refers to the judgment of conviction and sentence and that the words 'direct review' refer to the direct appellate review of that judgment"), superseded on other grounds as stated in Ruiz v. Sullivan, No. 1:09-cv-00747 LJO MJS HC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130474, at *7-8 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2010). However, the Court does not agree with the state that § 2244(d)(1)(D) bars Mr. Chavez's habeas petition as untimely.