In Re George Houston

Although some circuits have used the conspiracywide approach, it has been called into question by Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013) and subsequent cases from those circuits. Notably, the circuits to adopt the conspiracy-wide approach; did so before Alleyne was decided in 2013, while all circuits, to explicitly address the issue in Alleyne's wake, have adopted or followed the individualized approach. The circuits that earlier adopted the conspiracy-wide approach have, at times, failed to grapple with it in subsequent published or unpublished cases decided after Alleyne. The circuit's conflicts remain. The questions presented are: Whether it is the individualized drug quantity that is a fact that increases the mandatory minimum sentence or whether the amount of drugs attributable to the conspiracy as a whole can be the fact which triggers the mandatory minimum for an individual defendant? Whether a sentence that violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466 (2000) and Alleyne claims are jurisdictional error, and therefore the error may be raised on collateral review without being subject to procedural default or the non-retroactivity analysis of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989)? If not, whether this court should now make Apprendi and Alleyne retroactive limited in scope on collateral review from June 26, 2000, in which the Apprendi decision was announced?