supreme court’s duty to forward it), it surely was not filed “properly,” as § 2244(d)(2) requires. “[J]ust because [an] application is pending, does not mean that it was properly filed. For example, if an application is erroneously accepted by the clerk without the requisite filing fee, it will be pending, but not properly filed.” Christian v. Baskerville, 232 F.Supp.2d 605, 607 (E.D.Va.2001). “[A]n application is ‘properly filed’ when its delivery and acceptance are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings. These usually prescribe, for example, the form of the document, the time limits upon its delivery, the court and office in which it must be lodged, and the requisite filing fee.” Artuz, 531 U.S. at 8, 121 S.Ct. at 364; see, e.g., Hurley, 233 F.3d at 1298 (<HOLDING>). For the reasons discussed in the previous
holding that second state petition for postconviction relief that was dismissed as an abuse of the writ was properly filed holding that a second or subsequent state petition for postconviction relief filed according to the procedural rules of the state constitutes a properly filed application  without regard to the merits of the petition holding that a state application for relief had not been properly filed because it was not accompanied by an oath as required by state law holding that third state petition for postconviction relief that was dismissed as an abuse of the writ was properly filed holding that seventh application for postconviction relief which was rejected because evidence on which it was based was not properly authenticated was properly filed