of a "judgment of conviction” for the purposes of § 2255(f). 22 . In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), this court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981. 23 . That said, a Rule 35(b) motion "constitutes a separate proceeding” in a criminal case. United States v. Moreno, 364 F.3d 1232, 1234 (11th Cir.2004) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). And that separate proceeding is "part of the sentencing process.” United States v. Chavarria-Herrara, 15 F.3d 1033, 1036 (11th Cir.1994). It does not necessarily follow, however, that a Rule 35(b) reduction in a sentence constitutes a resentencing that results in a new judgment. 24 . See Chavania-Herrara, 15 F.3d at 1035 (<HOLDING>); id. at 1035-36 ("The government may appeal
holding that once a court reduces a sentence under rule 35b the remaining sanction as opposed to new sentence  falls within the common sense meaning of an otherwise final sentence  emphasis added quoting 18 usc  3742 holding that rule 35bs time limit is absolute regardless of whether the motion for reduction of sentence is framed under rule 35b or 18 usc  3651 holding that district court may consider 18 usc  3553a 2012 factors when deciding the extent of a sentence reduction after granting a rule 35b motion holding that a court may not change the term of sentence by subsequent amendment after the sentence becomes final holding that a sentence imposed for a violation of supervised release will be upheld where 1 the district court considered the applicable policy statements 2 the sentence is within the statutory maximum and 3 the sentence is reasonable