Whether the trial court erred in dismissing petitioner's motion to vacate the indictment on the premise that the motion did not qualify as a statutory application under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) because Georgia law provides that a motion to vacate or modify a judgment of conviction is not an appropriate remedy in a criminal case and therefore did not toll the time required under § 2244(b)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED IN A@tuz V. Beuwerr 53/ U.S. 4,8, /o/ S.CT. 38 ME LELOD | ae 213 (2000), Ts to eRABIE Couey Hel> THAT, “Appl cAT les wine othe A Smtr PROCEDULAL BAR RulES” LIM NOT BE Suicex ssh! . a an PAVE Been PRoperly PEMVERED AND Aecepred Ea) Lowe + rn 04400). wenidurien’s MPIC Been) MET? AND MEET THE TOIL CosPitvans 0 THE QueSTia) PRESENTED 15+ + bth Reprte “IF Perrier “PRoperhy Erba iN The Tal Coue4ss a” MeTiont 7 Vit CHE INDICTMENT A Cconoé 10 THE Fille STANDARDS SET OT 1) PRTUZV BENNETT, AND PuesumsT To Geerbss Lard [STHIVTE D.C.6-A 17 aah Also see Riley V. GARRETT, 219 Gi. 345,133 5.b.ad 367 (1463) AVE GuTIEeI ee V.STATE D940 6A. 43 (2012), AND THE TRidL COURT LATAC DISMISSES SHD ‘Met, end TO VACATE SD) c TUMENT ON THE Paemisé THAT PET ITER USED AN ‘iMphoPeER VEHLClé, C171 UG STHTE V. CORMHEN, 226 GA. AYR. 495 44-TT (2010) AWD Lowe V. Spaie;, 378 6A. 535, 534 (se 3), CAN THE CourTS Be leva “Chance ? THE NAWE OF PETITIONS ‘(MeTion TD VACATE IW DICTMENT TO A CMoTiad 70 VACATE VOID TUDELIUENT’ Cita Ieper V, St7HE, Sl S.€ad Slo, 7ST (a4) AND DiSAISS PET Tienes 3 2a5Y HABeAS CoRpus PETITION AS Whi mely on THE PREMISE THAT SAID FICTI Cio S MoeTion JO UACATE Vad TudGauaT Does Met qualify AS A STATUTE App) iCATION UNDER 3 2A44 DEO) BEtrAusE Georg. LAD PROVIDES THT A“ MeTion TS VACATE oR Mody THdG IME ST BE COmUCTION 16 NET AN APPROPRIATE Row EdY INP CRM WAL CASE AND THREGRE Did NeT TOIL THE Time RE QU wED UNDER 3 2a44 06). THE Courts Blows Decision TO CHANGE PET TIONALS METION TO VACATE INDICTMEAT IN te Motion TD VACATE VOID TUDGEMENT 15 IN Cont cf WN THE DE CS cont iN OTHER C®URTSS, P52