which is that the new rule announced in Alleyne applies retroactively on collateral review. See id. Jeanty does not meet Bryant’s third requirement because Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review. See id. First, neither Alleyne itself nor any later Supreme Court decision holds that Alleyne is retroactive. See United States v. Harris, 741 F.3d 1245, 1250 n. 3 (11th Cir.2014). Second, the Alleyne Court explained that its holding was an application of the rule established in Apprendi v. New Jersey, see Alleyne, 133 S.Ct. at 2163 (applying Apprendi, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (2000)), and we have repeatedly held that Apprendi’s rule does not apply retroactively on collateral review. See, e.g., Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1281-82 (11th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); McCoy v. United States, 266 F.3d 1245, 1258
holding that apprendi does not retroactively apply to  2255 motions holding that because apprendi does not apply retroactively neither does blakely holding that apprendi does not retroactively apply to  2241 petitions holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively holding the apprendi rule does not apply retroactively in the context of a  2241 petition