Apprendi and Ring, however, suggests that the United States Supreme Court in Ring overturned the Act or the overall structure of capital sentencing. Defendant reads too much into the opinion. Specifically, Ring held that Arizona’s enumerated aggravating factors operate as “the Junctional equivalent of an element of a greater offense,” but did not require that such factors become actual elements of a new substantive offense. Ring, 122 S.Ct. at 2443 (quoting Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 494 n. 19, 120 S.Ct. 2348) (emphasis added). Further, Apprendi stated that the “substantive basis for ... [the] enhancement is thus not at issue; the adequacy of ... [the] procedure is.” Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 475, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (emphasis added); see also, Cannon v. Mullin, 297 F.3d 989, 993-95 (10th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, Jones stated that “[t]he
holding that rule announced in mcconnell applies retroactively holding that apprendi announced a rule of criminal procedure forecloses  argument that ring announced a substantive rule holding that the rule announced in ring does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review holding in the context of a constitutional challenge to 21 usc  841 that apprendi announced a procedural rule holding that the rule announced by booker  does not operate retroactively