Is a District Court's decision not to grant a motion under Former Rule 35(a) reviewed for abuse of discretion?

A district court's ruling on a Rule 35 motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Sambino, 799 F.2d 16, 17 (2d Cir. 1985). "A district court has abused its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence or rendered a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions." United States v. Rowland, 826 F.3d 100, 114 (2d Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We have previously affirmed a district court's decision not to exercise discretion under Former Rule 35(a) in similar circumstances. See United States v. Persico, 688 F. App'x 58, 60 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) (affirming district court's denial of a motion under Former Rule 35(a) where defendant waited approximately thirty years after sentencing to file his motion and where the defendant had ample opportunity to raise challenges on direct and collateral appeal); United States v. Finkielstain, 293 F. App'x 62, 63 (2d Cir. 2008) (summary order) (concluding that the defendant had "ample opportunity to challenge the legality of his sentence" and that "[p]rudential considerations fully supported the district court's exercise of its discretion not to review the sentence in light of the passage of time.").