do not apply to the question of whether to grant relief from a final judgment. Otherwise, all final judgments could be vacated whenever the law changed. That is not what the Supreme Court contemplated when it created this doctrine. See Harper, 509 U.S. at 97, 113 S.Ct. at 2517, 125 L.Ed.2d at 86 (requiring retroactive application of new rules only to “cases still open on direct review”); Beam, 501 U.S. at 541, 111 S.Ct. at 2446, 115 L.Ed.2d at 492 (“Of course, retroactivity in civil cases must be limited by the need for finality; once suit is barred by res judicata or by statutes of limitation or repose, a new rule cannot reopen the door already closed.”) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Real Property Located at 12310 Short Circle, 162 F.R.D. 136, 138 n. 3 (E.D.Cal.1995) (<HOLDING>). Whether $J¡.05k applies to this motion can be
holding retroactive application holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence holding that rule 60b cannot provide any relief from the district courts judgment on an 18 usc  3582 motion because  3582 actions are criminal in nature and rule 60b is applicable only to civil proceedings holding no retroactive application holding that 405k cannot support a rule 60b motion for relief from a final civil judgment and stating that the principle of retroactive application of controlling decisions applies only to application in other civil cases which are not yet final at the time the controlling decision is issued