With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". acknowledges that Alleyne extended the rule of Apprendi and argues that because the Supreme Court has allowed Apprendi to be applied retroactively on collateral review, Alleyne should be applied retroactively as well. (R. 23, Special Suppl. at 13-15.) Petitioner does not cite a case in which Apprendi was applied retroactively on collateral review, however, and this Court is unable to locate any such case. To the contrary, “[n]o Court of Appeals, let alone [the Supreme] Court, has held that Ap-prendi has retroactive effect.” Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 581, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002) (Thomas, J., dissenting) overruled on other grounds by Alleyne, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013); see also Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 358, 124 S.Ct. 2519, 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004) (<HOLDING>). In Simpson, the Seventh Circuit explained

A: holding that ring v arizona 536 us 584 122 sct 2428 153 led2d 556 2002 which applied apprendi to arizonas capital sentencing scheme was not a watershed rule and did not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review
B: holding that ring does not apply retroactively in florida postconviction proceedings to cases that were final on direct review at the time of the ring decision
C: holding that the rule announced in ring v arizona 536 us 584 122 sct 2428 153 led2d 556 2002 doesnt apply retroactively on collateral review
D: holding that the rule announced in ring does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review
A.