merits, specifically whether the proffered evidence qualified as newly discovered evidence. The court’s decision on the merits is not a valid basis for refusing to toll the period in which Dictado could file a federal petition. The great majority of federal decisions interpreting the phrase “properly filed” in section 2244(d)(2) hold that it refers to compliance with the state’s basic procedural requirements for filing a petition, without regard to the merits of the petition. The Third Circuit held in Lovasz v. Vaughn, 134 F.3d 146 (3d Cir.1998), that a second or successive state petition summarily dismissed by Pennsylvania courts was “properly filed” because the state permitted the filing of second or subsequent petitions and the petitioner apparently satisfied the state’s p .Y.1997) (<HOLDING>). But see Valentine v. Senkowski, 966 F.Supp.
holding that second state petition for postconviction relief that was dismissed as an abuse of the writ was properly filed holding that second state petition for postconviction relief that was dismissed as frivolous and patently without merit was properly filed holding that third state petition for postconviction relief that was dismissed as an abuse of the writ was properly filed holding seventh state petition for postconviction relief which was based on newly discovered evidence but rejected by the state courts because the evidence was not newly discovered 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