context: . Even if the petition of 1/15/97 was untimely under Pennsylvania law, it is unclear that I would be obligated to make this finding absent a ruling by the state courts to that effect.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 892 F.2d 331, 337
citation_a.parenthetical: "[W]e are not bound to enforce a state procedural rule when the state itself has not done so, even if the procedural rule is theoretically applicable to our facts"
citation_a.sentence: See Smith v. Freeman, 892 F.2d 331, 337 (3d Cir.1989) (”[W]e are not bound to enforce a state procedural rule when the state itself has not done so, even if the procedural rule is theoretically applicable to our facts”).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 232 F.3d 799, 806
citation_b.parenthetical: adopting approach that analyzes whether a state application complied with the state's applicable filing requirements, independent of how the state courts treated the application
citation_b.sentence: Cf. Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799, 806 (10th Cir.2000) (adopting approach that analyzes whether a state application complied with the state’s applicable filing requirements, independent of how the state courts treated the application).