Whether the courts below erred by failing to hold that this Court's decision in Burrage announced a substantive rule that courts must apply retroactively to cases on collateral review

QUESTION PRESENTED In 2006, Petitioner Richard Ashbaugh pleaded guilty to distributing heroin, which, because of the sentence enhancement contained in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), carried a mandatory minimum sentence of twenty years. Petitioner was sentenced to this mandatory minimum, even though the evidence showed only that the drugs he provided, in combination with a cocktail of several other drugs, caused the victim’s death. Eight years later, in Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014), this Court held that Section 841(b)(1)(C)’s sentence enhancement could be imposed only if the drugs provided were the “but-for” cause of death. Since this Court decided Burrage, Mr. Ashbaugh has sought habeas review, given that he is actually innocent of the sentence enhancement. The courts below denied him relief, reasoning that Burrage does not apply retroactively on collateral review. These rulings join a deep and intractable circuit split: Four federal courts of appeal, the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits, hold that Burrage does indeed apply retroactively on collateral review, while two federal courts of appeal, the Third and Fourth Circuits, as reasoned below, hold that Burrage does not. The question presented is: Whether the courts below erred by failing to hold that this Court’s decision in Burrage, announced a substantive rule that courts must apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.