The occasions on which such a sentence may be later reduced are narrowly defined and irrelevant here. The situation is more complicated where a sentence is illegal, or has been illegally imposed, or both. Whether and to what extent an unlawful sentence or one unlawfully imposed may be attacked under 28 U.S.C. 2255 or habeas corpus is a separate issue with complexities of its own. However, none of these avenues has the slightest bearing on this case or provides the district court with any authority to reduce Aqua-Leisure's fine. Even now, Aqua-Leisure is unable to point to any legal error in the failure to afford an offset or any plausible basis for district court authority to reduce, over a year later, a lawful sentence lawfully imposed.
Concurrence follows .
And second, in my view, the district court correctly decided that the petitioner failed to meet this burden in this case. Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation. Of the District of New Hampshire, sitting by designation. E.g. , Fed. Apparently, in the district court Aqua-Leisure cited cases involving motions under Fed.