considered properly filed pursuant to § 2244(d). Id. at 727-28. First, the Ninth Circuit noted that Artuz specifically declined to decide what to do when the time of filing statute contains exceptions. Id. at 727. The Ninth Circuit then reasoned that if a state system provides for exceptions to its filing requirement, then the state court must first examine the merits of the petition to determine if one of the exceptions apply before dismissing it. Id. at 728. Thus, the Dictado court concluded, if a state court provides exceptions to the statutory time limit for filing, that statute “is properly regarded as a ‘condition to obtaining relief rather than a ‘condition to filing.’ ” Id. The Fifth Circuit has joined the Ninth Circuit in this conclusion. See Smith v. Ward, 209 F.3d 383 (2000)(<HOLDING>). Thus, it appears, the Ninth and Fifth
holding that although louisiana court held postconviction petition untimely filed statutory exceptions to filing requirement rendered petition properly filed for purposes of  2244d 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 untimely petition for postconviction petition divests trial court of jurisdiction holding that third 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 an abuse of the writ was properly filed