Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules-1979 Amendment The third sentence has been added to make it clear that the time limitation imposed by Rule 35 upon the reduction of a sentence does not apply to such reduction upon the revocation of probation as authorized by 18 U.S.C. The amendment makes it clear that in each of these three situations the 120-period commences to run with the entry of the order or judgment of the Supreme Court. (3) If the writ were granted and later the Court affirmed a judgment of the court of appeals which had affirmed the conviction, the rule did not provide any time period for reduction of sentence. (2) If the writ were granted but later dismissed as improvidently granted, the rule did not provide any time period for reduction of sentence. In those cases in which the mandate of the court of appeals is issued prior to action by the Supreme Court on the defendant's petition for certiorari, the rule created problems in three situations: (1) If the writ were denied, the last phrase of the rule left obscure the point at which the period began to run because orders of the Supreme Court denying applications for writs are not sent to the district courts. The other amendments to the second sentence clarify ambiguities in the timing provisions. Especially where a defendant has been committed to an institution at a distance from the sentencing court, the delays involved in institutional mail inspection procedures and the time required to contact relatives, friends and counsel may result in the 60-day period passing before the court is able to consider the case. The 60-day period is frequently too short to enable the defendant to obtain and file the evidence, information and argument to support a reduction in sentence. The second sentence has been amended to increase the time within which the court may act from 60 days to 120 days. The amendment recognizes the distinction between an illegal sentence, which may be corrected at any time, and a sentence imposed in an illegal manner, and provides a limited time for correcting the latter. 424 (1962) the court held that a motion to correct an illegal sentence was not an appropriate way for a defendant to raise the question whether when he appeared for sentencing the court had afforded him an opportunity to make a statement in his own behalf as required by Rule 32(a). The amendment to the first sentence gives the court power to correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within the same time limits as those provided for reducing a sentence. Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules-1966 Amendment The two rules together thus do away with the significance of the expiration of a term of court which has largely become an anachronism. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 6(c)), abolishes the term of court as a time limitation in respect to civil actions. Rule 45(c) abolishes the expiration of a term of court as a time limitation, thereby necessitating the introduction of a specific time limitation as to all proceedings now governed by the term of court as a limitation. The second sentence introduces a flexible time limitation on the power of the court to reduce a sentence, in lieu of the present limitation of the term of court. The first sentence of the rule continues existing law. Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules-1944 As used in this rule, “sentencing” means the oral announcement of the sentence. When acting under Rule 35(b), the court may reduce the sentence to a level below the minimum sentence established by statute. In evaluating whether the defendant has provided substantial assistance, the court may consider the defendant's presentence assistance. (C) information the usefulness of which could not reasonably have been anticipated by the defendant until more than one year after sentencing and which was promptly provided to the government after its usefulness was reasonably apparent to the defendant. (B) information provided by the defendant to the government within one year of sentencing, but which did not become useful to the government until more than one year after sentencing or (A) information not known to the defendant until one year or more after sentencing Upon the government's motion made more than one year after sentencing, the court may reduce a sentence if the defendant's substantial assistance involved: Upon the government's motion made within one year of sentencing, the court may reduce a sentence if the defendant, after sentencing, provided substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting another person. (b) Reducing a Sentence for Substantial Assistance. Within 14 days after sentencing, the court may correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error.