Task: Text Completion
Input (English): to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transportation Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Ci 2d 719 (2003). In any event, this Court fully discussed the merits of Concepcion’s Apprendi claim and concluded that any sente lakely is applicable to the federal sentencing guidelines. Even if held to be applicable, the Supreme Court has not determined that Blakely applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. Therefore, the rule in Blakely is of no aid to Concepcion in the resolution of this motion. See Simpson v. United States, 376 F.3d 679, 681-682 (7th Cir.2004) (finding that, even if Blakely announced a new constitutional rule, “the Supreme Court has not made the Blakely rule applicable to cases on collateral review”); In re: Dean, 375 F.3d 1287, 1290 (11th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Garcia, 2004 WL 1752588 at *5 (noting that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that batson v kentucky does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review (B) holding that blakely does not apply retroactively to  2255 motions (C) holding that the blakely rule does not apply retroactively on collateral review and cannot authorize a successive habeas petition (D) holding that apprendi does not apply on collateral review (E) holding that because apprendi does not apply retroactively neither does blakely
Output (English): (C)