Federal courts have repeatedly concluded that Hall and Moore merely created new procedural requirements that do not amount to "watershed rules of criminal procedure." See Williams v. Kelley, 858 F.3d 464, 474 (8th Cir. 2017) (Moore not retroactive); Goodwin v. Steele, 814 F.3d 901, 904 (8th Cir. 2014) (Hall not retroactive); Kilgore v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 805 F.3d 1301, 1314 (11th Cir. 2015) (Hall not retroactive); Lynch v. Hudson, No. 2:07-CV-948, 2017 WL 3404773, at *2-3 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 9, 2017) (Moore and Hall do not apply retroactively); Smith v. Dunn, No. 2:13-CV-00557-RDP, 2017 WL 3116937, at *4-6 (N.D. Ala. July 21, 2017) (Moore and Hall do not apply retroactively); Prieto v. Davis, No. 3:13CV849-HEH, 2014 WL 3867554, at *41-42 (E.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2014) (Hall not retroactive). More importantly, Payne fails to show that the Supreme Court has determined that Moore and Hall apply retroactively. Under § 2244(b)(2), a "new rule is not 'made retroactive to cases on collateral review' unless the Supreme Court holds it to be retroactive."

SeeWilliams v. Kelley, 858 F.3d 464, 474 (8th Cir. 2017) (Moore not retroactive); Goodwin v. Steele, 814 F.3d 901, 904 (8th Cir. 2014) (Hall not retroactive); Kilgore v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't ofCorr., 805 F.3d 1301, 1314 (11th Cir. 2015) (Hall not retroactive); Lynch v. Hudson, No. 2:07-CV-948, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125725, 2017 WL 3404773, at *2-3 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 9, 2017) (Moore and Hall do not apply retroactively); Smith v. Dunn, No. 2:13-CV-00557-RDP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113862, 2017 WL 3116937, at *4-6 (N.D. Ala. July 21, 2017) (Moore and Hall do not apply retroactively); Prieto v. Davis, No. 3:13CV849-HEH, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107504, 2014 WL 3867554, at *41-42 (E.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2014) (Hall not retroactive).Id. at 538.

Because the experts' opinions regarding Carroll's level of adaptive functioning, as well as their testimony concerning the reliability of the ABS-RC:2, were conflicting, it was reasonable for the circuit court to look to other evidence of Carroll's adaptive functioning to reconcile the experts' competing opinions regarding his abilities. See Smith v. Dunn (No. 2:13-cv-00557-RDP, July 21, 2017) (M.D. Ala. 2017) (not published in F.Supp.) (determining that, when the state court was presented conflicting test scores regarding adaptive functioning, "it was reasonable for the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals to look to Petitioner's demonstrated adaptive abilities (or lack thereof) to reconcile the test scores and determine which ones were credible" and that "[s]uch a determination does not run afoul of Moore").In this case, the circuit court looked to evidence of Carroll's adaptive abilities to reconcile the opinions of the experts regarding his functional limitations.