Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Weber, 472 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. Dec. 27, 2006) ("[C]ases interpreting statutes are 'fully retroactive because they do not change the law, but rather explain what the law has always meant .' United States v. Rivera-Nevarez, 418 F.3d 1104, 1107 (10th Cir. 2005). More generally, the Supreme Court has held that: 'When this Court applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it, that rule is the controlling interpretation of federal law and must be given full retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct review and as to all events, regardless of whether such events predate or postdate our announcement of the rule.' Harper v. Virginia Dept. of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 97 (1993). See also Olcott v. Delaware Flood Co., 76 F.3d 1538, 1547 (10th Cir. 1996).").