Jurisdiction to Entertain the Application for Reconsideration. Citing U.S. v. Addonizio (1979) 442 U.S. 178, 99 S.Ct. 2235, 60 L.Ed.2d 805, U.S. v. U.S. District Court (9th Cir.) 509 F.2d 1352, cert. denied, sub nom. Roselli v. U.S. (1975) 421 U.S. 962, 95 S.Ct. 1949, 44 L.Ed.2d 448, U.S. v. Dansker (3d Cir. 1978) 581 F.2d 69, U.S. v. Inendino (7th Cir. 1981) 655 F.2d 108, U.S. v. Hetrick (9th Cir. 1980) 644 F.2d 752, In re U.S. (5th Cir.) 900 F.2d 800, cert. denied, sub nom. Tapp v. U.S. (1990) ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 271, 112 L.Ed.2d 227, and U.S. v. Badr (E.D.N.Y. 1987) 666 F. Supp. 37, the government contends that this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the instant application in so far as it seeks reconsideration of its denial of the Rule 35 motion because the application was filed after the 120-day time limit set forth in that Rule. Defendant's response to the government's contention in this regard is primarily based on Judge Haight's opinion in U.S. v. Lichtman (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 1983), 1983 WL 4615. The Rule, as amended in 1985 and as here applicable, provides in pertinent part:

In Aini, the court noted that even if the plaintiff's failure to raise an argument at trial were excusable, reconsideration was inappropriate because the plaintiff waited eight months before filing its motion for reconsideration. See Aini, 174 F.R.D. at 330 (referring to an eight month delay as "extraordinary"); United States v. Badr, 666 F. Supp. 37, 38 (E.D.N.Y. 1987) (denying motion for reconsideration because it was filed one and a half years after the underlying motion had been denied). Given these precedents, a thirteen year delay between the original motion and the motion for reconsideration counsels denial of this motion for reconsideration.

However, Judge Knapp distinguished the situation confronting him, in which he found jurisdiction to entertain a motion for reconsideration, from those in which "unconscionable delay had elapsed between the denial of the original Rule 35 motion and the application for reconsideration." Id. at 656; see United States v. Inendino, 655 F.2d 108 (7th Cir. 1981) (affirming the district court's refusal to consider new evidence that had been submitted with a motion for reconsideration filed 42 days after the initial Rule 35 motion had been denied); United States v. Hetrick, 644 F.2d 752 (9th Cir. 1980) (holding untimely a second motion for reconsideration filed almost 9 months after the district court decided the original Rule 35 motion); United States v. Badr, 666 F. Supp. 37 (E.D.N.Y. 1987) (denying motion for reconsideration filed more than 18 months after Rule 35 motion had been denied).

In addition, there have been several reported decisions under the federal counterpart to Crim. P. 35(b) (Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b) as it existed prior to 1984) in which multiple motions to reconsider were filed. Uniformly, these decisions have determined the propriety of each motion based solely upon a consideration of its timeliness; in no case has it been suggested that the filing of more than one motion was itself prohibited. See United States v. Fields, 730 F.2d 460 (6th Cir. 1984); United States v. Counter, 661 F.2d 374 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Dansky, 581 F.2d 69 (3rd Cir. 1978); United States v. Badr, 666 F. Supp. 37 (E.D. N.Y. 1987). In light of this jurisprudence, we do not consider the word "or," as it is used in Crim. P. 35(b), as a word intended to restrict the number of motions that may be filed. That rule establishes two time limits for reconsideration because of its recognition that an appeal might not be filed in every case.