Whether the individualized drug quantity or the amount of drugs attributable to the conspiracy as a whole can trigger the mandatory minimum sentence for an individual defendant

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Although some circuits have used the conspiracy, wide 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that earlier adopted the conspiracy-wide approach have, at times, failed to grapple with it in subsequent published or unpublished cases decided after : Alleyne.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: (1) 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 trig‘gers the mandatory minimum for an individual defendant? (2) 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)? (3) 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?