cited Cited "see" Brown v. McNeil See Turner v. Crosby, 339 F.3d 1247, 1275 (11th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1034 , 124 S.Ct. 2104 , 158 L.Ed.2d 718 (2004).

discussed Cited "see" Marquard v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections See Turner v. Crosby, 339 F.3d 1247, 1282-83 (11th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1034 , 124 S.Ct. 2104 , 158 L.Ed.2d 718 (2004); Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310-313 , 109 S.Ct. 1060, 1075-77 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989).

discussed Cited "see" Windom v. State See Turner v. Crosby, 339 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir.2003), cert. denied, No. 03-9251, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2104 , 158 L.Ed.2d 718 (U.S. 2004). [22] Considering retroactivity first makes sense because, if we address the merits of a claim in a post-conviction case but then decide that a prior case does not apply retroactively, our discussion of the merits becomes mere dictum.