for Casas was life imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (conspiracy involving at least five kilograms of cocaine triggers a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for all coconspirators). The additional enhancements do not implicate the rule of Apprendi. See United States v. Lopez-Lopez, 282 F.3d 1, 22 (1st Cir.2002) (“Apprendi’s prohibition applies only when the disputed fact enlarges the applicable statutory maximum and the defendant’s sentence exceeds the original maximum.” (internal quotations omitted)).” Casas, 356 F.3d at 125. In light of the above, Petitioner Casas is not entitled on collateral review to reliti-gate issues raised on direct appeal, absent an intervening change in the law. Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 342, 94 S.Ct. 2298, 41 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974) (<HOLDING>). Cf. Singleton v. United States, 26 F.3d 233,
holding that an issue not raised on direct appeal of sentence is barred by the law of the case from presentation in a subsequent appeal holding that when relevant substantive law changed after the petitioners trial and unsuccessful appeal the petitioner could file a  2255 motion for collateral relief based on the intervening change in the law holding that a  2255 hearing is permitted on an issue previously addressed on direct appeal when there has been an intervening change in the law holding that when a habeas petitioner in a criminal case can show that there has been an intervening change of law relitigation of an issue decided adversely on direct appeal is not barred holding that defendant could not raise in a  2255 motion an issue previously decided on direct criminal appeal