predicate felony for an “aggravated felony” finding under the INA despite being considered a misdemeanor under the CSA. After Lopez, those persons — like Lopez himself — with state felony drug convictions for crimes that did not also amount to federal drug felonies were no longer “aggravated felons.” This clearly meets test of whether a change in law alters “the class of persons that the law punishes.” Schriro, supra, 542 U.S. at 353, 124 S.Ct. 2519. Likewise, after Lopez, the range of punishable conduct was significantly altered. Accordingly, I conclude Lopez announced a substantive new rule of law that should be applied retroactively to this collateral proceeding. But see United States v. Carroll, Nos. 5:03er42/ MCR, 5:06cv238/MCR/MD, 2007 WL 1299334, at *10 (N.D.Fla. April 30, 2007) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Barber, Civil No. 07-5103,
recognizing that a criminal defendants right to a fair trial is fundamental holding that it is not recognizing fundamental fairness requires criminal defendants be granted a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense holding without explanation lopez is clearly procedural under this standard and thus it cannot be applied retroactively unless it is a watershed rule of criminal procedure implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding holding that an individual charged with criminal contempt is entitled to the full procedural protections afforded the defendant in any other criminal proceeding