in Spanish. While we do not have a record of appellant’s Spanish statements, we assume that had appellant's Spanish statements risen to the level of criminal contempt, the district court would have stopped appellant, had her comments translated for the record, and made a contempt finding. In the absence of such action by the district court, we assume that appellant said nothing which rose to the level of criminal contempt. 6 . Because we hold that there was no alteration under Rule 35(c), we find it unnecessary to address the complicated question of exactly when a sentence is imposed for purposes of Rule 35(c). Currently, there is a circuit split on this issue. Many circuits look to the oral imposition of sentence. Compare United States v. Aguirre, 214 F.3d 1122, 1125 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Morrison, 204 F.3d
holding that oral imposition of sentence begins seven day clock for rule 35c holding that imposition occurs at time of oral pronouncement holding that modification of original sentence occurred outside the sevenday window and the district court lacked jurisdiction to act pursuant to rule 35c holding that trial court may modify sentence on the same day as the assessment of the initial sentence and before the court adjourns for the day 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