92 F.3d at 6. Even if such an accounting somehow fell short under Miller — and we do not hold that it did — such a procedural shortfall did not violate the bar on mandatory life sentences for juveniles, the only holding of Miller that the government has conceded qualifies for habeas relief on a second or successive petition, and the only holding on which the petitioners have made a prima facie showing of retroactivity. Cf Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 668, 121 S.Ct. 2478, 150 L.Ed.2d 632 (2001) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (noting that a rule has been made retroactive by the Supreme Court if the Court expressly declares it retroactive or issues multiple holdings that “logically dictate ... retroac-tivity”); Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989) (<HOLDING>). IY. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we
holding generally that new rules of law should not be applied retroactively in habeas corpus cases holding that the act is retroactive holding retroactive application holding that the act is not retroactive holding that new rules of criminal procedural are generally not retroactive