are questions of law, which we review de novo.”); United States v. Jones, 32 F.3d 1512, 1517-18 (11th Cir.1994) ("Whether a particular Guideline applies to a given set of facts is a legal question subject to de novo review.”); United States v. Stokley, 881 F.2d 114, 115-16 (4th Cir.1989) (performing de novo review where the defendant did “not really attack the factual undergirding of his sentence but rather contended] that his behavior did not fall within the legal definition of the term 'physically restrained’ ”). 11 . United States v. Anglin, 169 F.3d 154, 164 (2d Cir.1999). 12 . Pub.L. No. 108-21, 117 Stat. 650 (Apr. 30, 2003). See United States v. Phillips, 356 F.3d 1086, 1098-1100 (9th Cir.2004), as amended by 367 F.3d 846, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5444 (9th Cir. May 06, 2004) (<HOLDING>). 13 . 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e). 14 . Koon v. United
holding that batson does apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review holding that the  1981 amendments contained in  101 of the civil rights act of 1991 do not apply retroactively holding 2001 amendments to ocga  428341 apply retroactively holding that the protect act amendments to the standard of review apply retroactively holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively