U.S.C. § 3231. We exercise plenary review over the question of whether we have jurisdiction to consider Ragno-li’s appeal. In re Blatstein, 192 F.3d 88, 94 (3d Cir.1999). III. Discussion Ragnoli contends that the District Court’s May 7, 2015 letter impermissibly modified his sentence outside of his presence. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 (permitting sentencing courts to modify sentences under specific circumstances not present in this case); Fed.R.Crim.P. 43(a)(3) (requiring defendant’s presence at sentencing). The government argues that the May 7, 2015 letter was not a court order, but merely an advisory letter to the BOP, and therefore cannot form the basis for an appeal before this Court. The government does not argue that Ragnoli’s appeal of the letter was untimely; therefore this ir.2006) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Melendez, 279 F.3d 16, 18
holding that a reviewable final order is necessary for subjectmatter jurisdiction holding the order is only reviewable if actually considered by the district court holding that a district courts order is final and immediately reviewable under mitchell if the appellants properly raised a claim of qualified immunity in the district court holding that it is not holding that a nonbinding recommendation to the bop is not reviewable as it is not a final decision of the district court