3, 2007, Docket No. 171. 2 . The Court also orally imposed a sentence of imprisonment of 108 months on Counts 5 and 6, and four years on Count 11, to run concurrently. Before signing the Judgment and Commitment, the Court revised the sentence imposed on Count 11 to make it an eight year concurrent sentence. The authority of the Court to do so is the subject of a motion to vacate by the defendant, addressed in a separate Memorandum Opinion and Order issued this same day. 3 . As discussed in the separate Memorandum Opinion and Order issued this same day, as used in Rule 35, "sentencing” means "the oral announcement of the sentence.” Fed. R.Crim.P. 35(c). 4 . There is a procedural wrinkle that, i Cir.1993) (same). See also United States v, Abreu-Cabrera, 64 F.3d 67, 73 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Lopez, 26 F.3d 512, 519 n. 8
holding that the crossappeal time limit is jurisdictional holding that rule 4j predecessor rule to 4m s exemption for service in foreign countries does not apply where service under rule 4i predecessor to rule 4j  was never attempted holding that time limit in rule 35c predecessor to rule 35a  is jurisdictional holding that a time limit for filing a complaint as a creditor in bankruptcy proceedings is not jurisdictional holding that time limit for filing petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional