announces, however, that the right recognized must be applicable retroactively to be used as a weapon for a collateral attack, and thus, as detailed below, because Apprendi is not retroactively applicable, Parrado can not take advantage of the Apprendi decision in the instant motion. II. The Retroactivity of Apprendi The Second Circuit recently heard arguments regarding the retroactivity of Apprendi, but has not yet rendered its decision. See Beatty v. United States, 293 F.3d 627, 631 n. 3 (2d Cir.2002) (citing United States v. Luciano (Parise), No. 01-1198 (2d Cir. argued Jan. 28, 2002)). The Supreme Court also has not ruled on this issue. The App pprendi’s retroactivity have presumed the rule to be procedural. See e.g., United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 147 (4th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Raulston v. Menifee, No. 01 Civ. 0406, 2002
holding in the context of a constitutional challenge to 21 usc  841 that apprendi announced a procedural rule holding apprendi is not retroactive holding that the apprendi decision is not applicable on collateral review holding the language of apprendi dictates that rule is procedural holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively in florida postconviction proceedings to cases that were final on direct review at the time of the apprendi decision