With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Supreme Court decision. See Bryant v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium, 738 F.3d 1253, 1274 (11th Cir.2013); Williams, 713 F.3d at 1343; Wofford, 177 F.3d at 1244. This requires showing, inter alia, that the new Supreme Court rule upon which Griffin relies — i.e., the rule announced in Al-leyne — applies retroactively on collateral review. See Bryant, 738 F.3d at 1274; Williams, 713 F.3d at 1343; Wofford, 177 F.3d at 1244. Here, Griffin’s sentence is 360 months, which is 240 months above the statutory minimum penalty of 120 months’ imprisonment. Thus, Griffin is not serving a statutory mandatory minimum sentence, and Alleyne does not apply to his case. In any event, AUeyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review. See Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1281-82 (11th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); see also McCoy v. United States, 266 F.3d

A: holding that because apprendi does not apply retroactively neither does blakely
B: holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively
C: holding the apprendi rule does not apply retroactively in the context of a  2241 petition
D: holding that apprendi does not retroactively apply to  2241 petitions
C.