conclude that he also is ineligible factually under the plain terms of the exception to the rule. It is undisputed that Orozco did not provide information or evidence in the prosecution of Rodriguez that was unknown to him during the one-year time limitation following the imposition of his sentence. He reiterated at Rodriguez’s trial in 1996 the same information that he had given the government in 1990 before his sentencing. The current version of Rule 35(b) concerning assistance provided by a convicted defendant more than a year after imposition of his sentence focuses on the character of the information provided by the defendant, new disclosures, and not the usefulness of that information to the government. See United States v. Mitchell, 964 F.2d 454, 461 (5th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). With the hope of reducing their sentences,
holding that the four year sentence imposed by the district court was appropriate as it was comparable to the five year sentence for perjury or obstruction of justice holding that cost of plastic surgery to repair scarring was an expense incurred within one year of the accident even though the physician waited more than a year after the accident to perform the operation holding that a prior north carolina conviction was for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year if any defendant charged with that crime could receive a sentence of more than one year recognizing that in the usual case no information or evidence comes to light more than one year after imposition of sentence holding that the unit of prosecution under  666a1a is  5000 or more from whatever source in any one year period in which the government or agency at issue receives more than 10000 in federal aid