Whether the 1-year limitation period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) and (D) can be tolled under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and (c)(1), and whether the time limitation to challenge an unconstitutional and void judgment applies

No question identified. : | Ch f SUOHOb LIM UL P2H4ObId AYE a WOHVOD SHieprIAd SmTOY : Wy 2HIIS MF Ff shaspeaad) Soaqoy OH Nddvo roperad m2 Fo $2\03 ayy og (3 CEE CIEIEZS ISO BZ Yh 107 MU'IdwOD Ut La-ySvadWaD Pl quash 4970) SIU [foo PrUIS} ILS! pun poyrinudD Npovortof4suaDug veg ono Tay ms TC ELE Papo Yo Soi suwusaD po quay, hyenas ure <P. wal pet S20P Sapo4PES oval tot $sbauo Gu pojan BE f? Pr NVOD SoM T 40 (9 EG fA) PU ques 197) SIU TIP) Plan pun Jeuoropsuaun ayo Gurren po Paprinuap soc IE SEM ALC Ut fol aouepina say MOUS Tf (s , CEL Pil pid | BUSH ab ESUDUO VOrFOINUOD FO puavsbpoC rut S\ PION puro [ruUOHO}ASUTO S! huppejorr GO PaeNVTD SoM To SahrpotS Wy FO Pyeuroug,, Ut § (h 2 € | BRP 2OP JO VOH}DIAIN U) PRLS dur pun PAIWAVOD <p Gn | 5529CUd FOP FO VO}bIOIN YU) payrobe 2497) Lurvjonn I? PWD 90™M TL. SOS UE Jor CE CLE SPU anp FO LOILbIOIN b +UaUDUD LDS SoM) veyaKsUD bibscac Yh IO Ndwwon 4U PIP Gasp qain $0 Paryn7d Sua T SaHOpo}S yp Jo HAH, rH FX (Z ELE Clo Voipisug) »ibecas ui fe A ydosboand, | TL VHS 'T apps ap 4uvossod pron pasoprap ap hay Poy 1 e192 VOroLr¢Su9) WbIOD PP JO VOM DION UL Papobug,, WAC) WAYF fT — "hula o 40 vegssuleTcy bULIEp uaroasit b JO HOrs2S5%, 9/17 £97 "PH? Matto paonerby jg ‘opoy jo Wewpolg |-1-1 SW’ OI-O Patrols mbrore 49 7P7) JPagtO MAL KL PDD FUTBIESS. PY] OL SUOESIN) aan Questions To The Supreme Court Contiqued... ~ Q) XP the | year limdation pericd under 26 0-S-C§ 2244 CA) C1) CA) and CD) Con Roem to Fed. B.C. 66 Cb) and CO (0) CU is ib apeworiate for these Feb. B. Cw® fo be aeplied fo my habeas proceeding 72? . 0) 22 the lyear fimitabion period under Fed, 'R. Civ. PR GO) C1) does nob agely to Fed B Cu GOO) (4) void judgment and CL) Any other ceason that justifies relief, is Wagemoriate to amply this to 28 0.5.08 22 44 Ca) (I CA) ord (D) 77? tt) hak is the Hine limitation to challenge o Unconstitutional aad void jodgment ??7 IL) TC Lm in custody in wolation Of the Geargia Constitotion is thal a reason that justi Lies reliel ??? (3) TC Te been convicted in violation of dve Prmcess 1s that a CeGepn fhat _josk Lies reliel 277