2 point rule dating
1, 2009.) Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1944 The first sentence of the rule continues existing law.Rule 35(c) provides an efficient and prompt method for correcting obvious technical errors that are called to the court's attention immediately after sentencing.
The Committee's assumption is that a defendant detained pursuant to such a sentence could seek relief under 28 U. Rule 35(c) and §2255 should thus provide sufficient authority for a district court to correct obvious sentencing errors.
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1991 Amendment Rule 35(b), as amended in 1987 as part of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, reflects a method by which the government may obtain valuable assistance from defendants in return for an agreement to file a motion to reduce the sentence, even if the reduction would reduce the sentence below the mandatory minimum sentence.
This amendment does not preclude the filing of a motion by a defendant for further reduction of sentence after the court has reduced a sentence on its own motion, if filed within the 120 days specified in this rule.
The two rules together thus do away with the significance of the expiration of a term of court which has largely become an anachronism. 424 (1962) the court held that a motion to correct an illegal sentence was not an appropriate way for a defendant to raise the question whether when he appeared for sentencing the court had afforded him an opportunity to make a statement in his own behalf as required by Rule 32(a).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 6(c)) [28 U. C., Appendix], abolishes the term of court as a time limitation in respect to civil actions. The subdivision is not intended to afford the court the opportunity to reconsider the application or interpretation of the sentencing guidelines or for the court simply to change its mind about the appropriateness of the sentence.