See In re Patterson, No. 10-13445-D, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26606, at *3 (11th Cir. Aug. 12, 2010) ("InJohnson, the Supreme Court did not discuss the applicability of its ruling as to retroactivity on collateral review and, thus, did not explicitly make the case retroactive on collateral review."). See also Berryhill v. United States, Case No: 8:11-cv-444-T-30MAP, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110880, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2011) (same); Jackson v. United States, Case No: 8:10-cv-2000-T-27TBM, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101056, at *7 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 8, 2011) (same); Crawford v. United States, Case No. 8:11-cv-1866-T-30TGW, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94291, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2011) (same);Rogers v. United States, Case No. 8:10-cv-1873-T-27EAJ, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91911, at *9 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2011) (same); Hires v. United States, Case No. 8:11-Cv-388-T-30TGW, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90040, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2011) (same); United States v. Waddy, Case No. 8:11-cv-892-T-23MAP, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78724, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2011) (same); McGowan v. United States, Case No. 8:10-CV-2526-T-30EAJ, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65677, at *6 (M.D. Fla. June 21, 2011) (same); Tarver v. United States, Case No. 8:10-CV-2529-T-30MAP, 2011 WL 2970089, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 20, 2011) (same). Since Johnson has not been found retroactive, § 2255(f)(3) does not apply to petitioner.