States v. Navarro Viayra, 365 F.3d 790, 793 (9th Cir.2004). The parties agree that the version of Rule 35 in effect before November 1, 1987, the effective date of the Sentencing Reform Act, applies to this case. Thus, our analysis of Montalvo’s Rule 35 motion will rely on that prior version of the rule. A. Rule 35(a) provides that “[t]he court may correct an illegal sentence at any time.... ” Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a) (1987). In Hill v. United States, the Supreme Court held that Rule 35 performs the “narrow function” of correcting an “illegal sentence,” and is not meant to permit the “reexamin[ation of] errors occurring at the trial or other proceedings prior to the imposition of sentence.” 368 U.S. 424, 430, 82 S.Ct. 468, 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962); see also Heflin, 358 U.S. at 418, 79 S.Ct. 451 (<HOLDING>). The Court explained that a sentence is not
holding that time limit in rule 35c predecessor to rule 35a  is jurisdictional 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 the only question on a rule 35a motion is whether the sentence imposed was illegal on its face  emphasis added holding that a federal court has jurisdiction over the question of whether truck was engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the accident emphasis added holding that the question to be resolved on a challenge under article v2b is whether the contract as interpreted would violate some explicit public policy emphasis added