595, 597 (8th Cir.2000) (“Thus, more than seven days after the imposition of [the defendant’s] sentence, the District Court had no jurisdiction to alter it, even if the sentence was legally erroneous.”); United States v. Barragan-Mendoza, 174 F.3d 1024, 1029 (9th Cir.1999) (stating that the party seeking sentence modification “must meet the conditions of [Rule 35(c) ]; otherwise, the district court cannot modify a defendant’s sentence” and vacating sentence modified two months after original sentence imposed); United States v. Werber, 51 F.3d 342, 348 (2d Cir.1995) (“Because the district court modified the defendants’ original sentences more than seven days after they were imposed, the court had no jurisdiction to enter the corrected judgments under Rule 35(c).”); Lopez, 26 F.3d at 520 (<HOLDING>); Fahm, 13 F.3d at 454 (“Since the narrow
holding that court lacked jurisdiction to modify visitation where it dismissed the modification petition holding that oral imposition of sentence begins seven day clock for rule 35c holding that modification of original sentence occurred outside the sevenday window and the district court lacked jurisdiction to act pursuant to rule 35c holding that even if the district court lacked jurisdiction to correct a defendants sentence under fedrcrimp 35c  3583e2 authorized the court to modify the conditions of a defendants supervised release holding that a district court may impose sanctions for abuse of judicial process pursuant to rule 11 even after it is determined that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claims