since she was sentenced. For disposition, the district court assumed that it possessed jurisdiction and denied her motion on its merits. This court has not considered whether Rule 35(b)’s 120-day jurisdictional limitation is absolute or whether a motion for reduction of sentence framed in terms of 18 U.S.C. § 8651 may be filed at any time prior to the date of incarceration. Nevertheless, we agree with Judge Grady that he probably did not have jurisdiction to hear Nancy Melody’s motion for reduction of sentence. We believe that Rule 35(b) does control the period in which all motions to reduce a sentence must be filed, including requests for probation. See, e.g., United States v. Jackson, 802 F.2d 712 (4th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 931, 107 S.Ct. 1568, 94 L.Ed.2d 760 (1987) (<HOLDING>). But see United States v. Karp, 764 F.2d 613
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 time limit in rule 35c predecessor to rule 35a  is jurisdictional 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 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 a court has authority to order probation under 18 usc  3651 at any time before the defendant is incarcerated regardless of rule 35bs 120day jurisdictional limitation