elements” that are essential to a fair trial. Teague, 489 U.S. at 311, 109 S.Ct. 1060. As the government argues in the instant action, absence of the rule set out in Apprendi does not threaten the fundamental fairness of trial or create a risk that an innocent party will be convicted. See The Government’s Memorandum In Opposition to Parrado’s § 2255 Motion at 17. To the contrary, Apprendi places the burden of determining elements that lead to sentence enhancement on the jury rather than the judge. 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348. In Bilzerian v. United States, the Second Circuit held that shifting an element of proof from the judge to the jury did not constitute a watershed rule, and therefore was not applicable on collateral review. 127 F.3d 237, 241 (2d Cir.1997) (McLaughlin, J.) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the rule set forth in Apprendi
holding that a contract is ambiguous if a reasonable person would find it susceptible to different or inconsistent interpretations holding that interpretations of a statute which produce absurd results are to be avoided if alternative interpretations consistent with the legislative purpose are available holding that the rights of an aggrieved party are substantially affected if the outcome either would have or may have been different had the error not occurred holding that juries will likely not have substantially different interpretations than judges holding that when a contract is ambiguous and the parties suggest different interpretations summary judgment is inappropriate because an issue of fact exists