view of its decision on the merits, the Court need not address. Rule 35(a) on its face does not provide a time limit for when a motion must be filed, but a time limit within which the Court must act. The circuits are split on how to deal with this language. Compare United States v. Barragan-Mendoza, 174 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir.1999) (timely motion filed pursuant to Rule 35(c) [the predecessor to Rule 35(a) ] does not give jurisdiction to court for so long as it takes to dispose of motion because court itself is required to act within the prescribed time limit by plain language of the Rule); United States v. Morillo, 8 F.3d 864, 869 (1st Cir.1993) (same); United States v. Turner, 998 F.2d 534, 536 (7th Cir.1993) (same) with United States v. Cannouche, 138 F.3d 1014, 1016 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Corey, 999 F.2d 493, 496
holding that the only question on a rule 35a motion is whether the sentence imposed was illegal on its face  emphasis added holding that motion for reconsideration renders deportation order nonfinal despite language of the 1990 amendments holding that time limit in rule 35c predecessor to rule 35a  is jurisdictional holding that timely filing of rule 35c predecessor to rule 35a  motion renders otherwise final order of district court nonfinal until disposition of that motion holding that because the finality of judgment is effectively postponed by the timely filing of a motion under rule 59 the deadline for filing a motion for attorneys fees is tolled until the postjudgment motion is resolved