retroactively to “Certain Disparate Impact Cases.” This section clouds the issue, because it implies by exclusion that in non-enumerated cases re-troactivity could apply. See Croce v. V.I.P. Real Estate, Inc., 786 F.Supp. 1141 (S.D.N.Y.1992). The legislative history is no more helpful. One court noted: Every federal court in the United States is now faced with the problem which this proposed amendment presents. Why? Because Congress in this new Civil Rights litigation punted on the question of whether or not the Act applies retroactively. Many Senators and Congressmen have deliberately tried to create a “legislative history” to support their personal views on this question [and] deliberately choose not to include in the statute itself a provision either for retroactive or .D.N.Y.1992) (<HOLDING>). In this district, Judge Dorsey held that the
holding no retroactive application holding that the act is not retroactive holding apprendi is not retroactive holding retroactive application of the act to prosecution that was pending before the effective date of the act was precluded because the act is prospective holding retroactive application