this exception. This exception is limited, however, “to those procedures without which the likelihood of an accurate conviction is seriously diminished.” Id. The rule at issue here has no bearing on the accuracy of the defendant’s criminal conviction. As such, the second exception to non-retroactivity is inapplicable in this case. In supplemental briefing on this issue, petitioner also argues that retroactive application is appropriate because the rule of law which Garcia invokes is substantive, rather than procedural. Petitioner’s argument is premised upon a third exception, which provides that, in contrast to new constitutional rules of criminal procedure, substantive rules of criminal law are applied retroactively. See United States v. McClelland, 941 F.2d 999, 1000 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Under this substantive law exception, when a
holding dollar amount is not an essential element holding that failure to instruct on an essential element was harmless error because the element was so clearly established holding that causation is an essential element in failure to warn claim holding that the decision in aguon ii 851 f2d 1158 9th cir1988 finding that inducement is an essential element of extortion was fully retroactive holding that dollar amount is an essential element of welfare fraud