that it challenges the underlying conviction or seeks to vacate any component of the original sentence that was not amended”). 9 .It is clear, on these facts, Appellant was not entitled to statutory tolling. Section 2244(d)(2) provides “[t]he time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction ... review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation .... ” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) (emphasis added). Appellant concedes his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 was unsigned and, therefore, not properly filed. Thus, this motion did not toll the limitations period on his petition as a statutory matter. See Hurley v. Moore, 233 F.3d 1295, 1297-98 (11th Cir.2000)
holding statute of limitations for filing petition for postconviction relief not tolled by general savings statute tolling limited to reasons enumerated in state postconviction relief act holding statute of limitations should not be equitably tolled for taxpayer who filed a refund claim after the applicable statute of limitations holding that the statute of limitations is tolled during a malicious prosecution suit when a timely complaint is filed holding that the oneyear statute of limitations was not tolled during the pendency of petition for certiorari to the united states supreme court seeking review of denial of state postconviction relief holding when a motion for postconviction relief is not properly filed  2244s statute of limitations is not statutorily tolled