W.R.Cr.P. 85(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. Kur-tenbach did not, however, file the motion as a Rule 35(a) motion, and he has pointed to no illegality in the sentence entered by the district court following his guilty plea. Kur-tenbach's arguments on appeal are instead directed to enforcement of an alleged oral order of the district court and an obligation by the State to take physical eustody of him from the facility in which he is presently serving a sentence in one of the Dakotas. [113] Kurtenbach's "Motion to Execute Sentence" is not a motion to correct an illegal sentence, and it is not a motion otherwise expressly provided for by rule or statute. We therefore conclude that the district court was without jurisdiction to consider the motion. See Lee, ¶ 6, 157 P.3d at 949 (<HOLDING>). Because the district court lacked subject
holding that this court lacked preliminary authority to review the district courts jurisdiction because there was no immediately appealable order before the court holding district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the document before the district court in this instance is not a vehicle for any recognized legal remedy under the rules holding that this court lacked jurisdiction under  46110 for lack of finality and that the district court also lacked jurisdiction because the orders were not final and thus not ripe for review holding that rule 11 sanctions imposed by district court remained in effect after case was remanded to state court upon a finding that district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court