is waived. United States v. Muhammud, 701 F.3d 109, 111 (3d Cir.2012) (stating that the time limits under Fed. R.App. P. 4(b) are waived if the government does not invoke them). Ragnoli’s arguments depehd upon a finding that the May 7, 2015 letter was an appealable court order. However, when the District Court wrote the tetter, it lacked the authority to issue an order modifying Ragnoli’s sentence. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 819, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (observing that federal courts generally are not able to modify sentences at a later date); 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (listing the exceptional circumstances when a court may modify a sentence at a later date, none of which are applicable here). In May 2015, approximately two years after the District th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Kerr, 472 F.3d 517, 520 (8th
holding that district courts nonbinding recommendations to the bop are not appealable holding appealable a case dismissed in effect by the district courts order holding that a district courts recommendation that the bop not credit the defendant for his time in state custody was not appealable because the district courts recommendation was not binding on the bop holding that the portion of a district courts order that included a specific place of imprisonment was only a nonbinding recommendation to the bop and therefore not appealable holding sanctions order pursuant to district courts inherent powers not immediately appealable