or sell the property. Moreover, once the forfeiture became final, ownership of the premises reverted to the Government from the day that Rashid’s criminal activity began. See 92 Buena Vista Avenue, 507 U.S. at 125-26, 113 S.Ct. 1126 This preceded the date the Government placed a lien on the property. Accordingly, Rashid’s request for damages is without merit and was properly dismissed. We will reverse the judgment of the District Court insofar as it held that Rash-id’s obligation to pay restitution was not dischargeable in bankruptcy, and we will remand to the District Court with a direction to enter an order of discharge. 1 . Although not decided by any court of appeals, it is unlikely that this statute applies retroactively. See In re Gelb, 187 B.R. 87, 90 n. 6 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1995) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 1998 WL 221366, *2 n. 2 (E.D.N.Y.1998)
holding that apprendi does not retroactively apply to  2255 motions holding miranda decision does not apply retroactively holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively holding that because apprendi does not apply retroactively neither does blakely holding that  523a13 does not apply retroactively