In this Oregon federal-drug violations case, appellant’s trial for conspiracy to distribute cocaine occurred prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s announcement in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” At the time of trial, all Circuits allowed a judge to determine the drug quantity for which the defendant was responsible for by a preponderance of evidence. The Court of Appeals here held that the new rule announced in Apprendi is not a “bedrock” rule of criminal procedure (i.e., one that is fundamental and would greatly affect the accuracy of the conviction), thus falling within the exceptions of Teague v. Lane (1989) 489 U.S. 288 and, therefore, does not apply retroactively on initial collateral review.