With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Green, 944 So.2d 208 (Fla.2006), Barrios-Cruz’s motions are still untimely. Affirmed. KHOUZAM and MORRIS, JJ., Concur. 1 . Courts that have concluded that Padilla should be applied retroactively include: People v. Bennett, 28 Misc.3d 575, 903 N.Y.S.2d 696 (N.Y.Crim.Ct.2010); Marroquin v. United States, 2011 WL 488985 (S.D.Tex. Feb.4, 2011); United States v. Hubenig, 2010 WL 2650625 (E.D.Cal. Jul.l, 2010); United States v. Chaidez, 730 F.Supp.2d 896 (N.D.Ill.2010); Martin v. U.S., 2010 WL 3463949 (C.D.Ill. Aug.25, 2010); and Al Kokabani v. United States, 2010 WL 3941836 (E.D.N.C. Jul.30, 2010). Courts that have reached the opposite conclusion include: People v. Kabre, 29 Misc.3d 307, 905 N.Y.S.2d 887 (N.Y.Crim.Ct.2010); United States v. Macedo, 2010 WL 5174342 (N.D.Fla. Dec.15, 2010) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Hough, 2010 WL 5250996

A: holding that until the supreme court rules otherwise apprendi is not a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review  that was previously unavailable
B: holding that cage has been made retroactive to cases on collateral review
C: holding simply that padilla was not made retroactive to cases on collateral review without further analysis
D: holding the supreme court has not held in a case or a combination of cases that the rule in johnson is retroactive to cases on collateral review and therefore it has not made johnson retroactive
C.