Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): district court on remand from this court; (2) Wayt is was not entitled to relief under Rule 35(b) because, inter alia, the government has not moved for a sentence reduction; and (3) Wayt is not entitled to relief under Rule 35(c) both because the motion was not filed within seven days of the imposition of sentence and because the motion failed to identify any arithmetical or technical error in the sentence. In fact, it is clear that the proper vehicle for seeking the type of relief sought by Wayt is a motion to correct or vacate illegal sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Accordingly, this court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and AFFIRMS the district court’s denial of Wayt’s Rule 35 motion. See United States v. McMillan, 106 F.3d 322, 324 n. 4 (10th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). * This order and judgment is not binding 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that pursuant to the collateral order doctrine and 28 usc  1291 a state may appeal from a district court order denying it eleventh amendment immunity (B) holding that jurisdiction to hear appeal from resolution of a rule 35 motion arises under 18 usc  3742 rather than 28 usc  1291 (C) holding that a nonparty may appeal an order of criminal contempt arising out of a pending action under 28 usc  1291 (D) holding that order denying motion to dismiss a bankruptcy petition is final under 28 usc  1291 (E) holding that the rule 21 severance rendered the district court verdict a final and appealable judgment under 28 usc  1291
Output (English): holding that a nonparty may appeal an order of criminal contempt arising out of a pending action under 28 usc  1291