Did the First Circuit err in denying a jurisdictionally sound motion filed pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case came before the First Circuit Court of Appeals which held that the district court did not err in imposing an upward-variant sentence on a revocation of conditions of release, and did not err in divesting itself sua sponte of a properly filed motion pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a), simply by ignoring it. United States v. Picard, No. 20-2154 (1* Cir. Sept. 8, 2021). The questions presented are: i. Did the First Circuit err in denying a jurisdictionally sound motion filed pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a), where the district court simply ignored the motion for over 14 days and then declared the motion lacked jurisdiction because no action had been taken on that motion? Specifically, the motion as filed, was jurisdictionally proper, but the district court stated that per operation of Rule 35(a), jurisdiction was lost because the district court ignored the motion for over 14 days. Petition had argued in that motion whether both the First Circuit and district court erred in their interpretation of Rule 35(a) to the effect questioning whether the district court was within its rights to divest itself of jurisdiction. ll. Did the First Circuit err in concluding that the district court’s imposition of an upwardly-variant sentence was not either procedurally or substantively unreasonable, where the district court substituted its judgment for that of a licensed psychologist concerning an assessment of the defendant’s mental health? Specifically, the court ignored a psychological evaluation of defendant, substituted its own psychological assessment of defendant and then imposed the maximum possible sentence against the defendant. The defendant was a severely disabled elderly man. -j