sentence.’ ” Id. at 1028 (quoting United States v. Soto-Holguin, 163 F.3d 1217, 1220 (10th Cir.1999)). We noted that “[a]lthough the government filed its motion within seven days, the district court did not rule on the motion within that time period,” and the “government, nevertheless, argues that it satisfied the requirements of Rule 35(c), because the district court need not actually decide the motion within seven days, as long as the government filed the motion within that period.” Id. at 1029-30. We held in Barragan-Mendoza that “the district court did not ‘act’ within seven days from the imposition of sentence and therefore lacked jurisdiction thereafter to modify Barragan’s sentence.” Id. at 1030; see also United States v. Aguilar-Reyes, 653 F.3d 1053, 1055-56 (9th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); Penna, 319 F.3d at 510 (“We hold that the
holding that magistrate had substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed where affidavit which recited information received from anonymous tip from informer in february 2007 regarding narcotic activity on unspecified date included several details about defendant and residence that were later confirmed officer found residue that fieldtested positive for marihuana in garbage can located on street directly in front of residence on march 1 2007 officer found marihuana stems seeds and residue in garbage can on march 5 and search warrant was issued on march 6 and executed on march 7 holding the fourteen day provision in rule 35a is jurisdictional and reinstating defendants original sentence when defendant was originally sentenced on march 1st defendant filed a rule 35a motion on march 5th the district court held a hearing on the rule 35 motion on march 29th and resentenced defendant on april 12th holding that time limit in rule 35c predecessor to rule 35a  is jurisdictional holding that the only question on a rule 35a motion is whether the sentence imposed was illegal on its face  emphasis added holding that the district court and this court had subject matter jurisdiction over the defendants motion for modification of sentence based on amendment 706 even though the defendant filed the motion before march 3 2008 because the district court ruled on the motion after that date