context: We have jurisdiction to adjudicate this appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS 3742(b). Whether the district court had jurisdiction to resentence Diaz-Clark is a legal question subject to plenary review.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 40 F.3d 1212, 1215
citation_a.parenthetical: 'Whether a court has jurisdiction over a particular case is a question of law subject to plenary review."
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Sjeklocha, 114 F.3d 1085, 1087 (11th Cir.1997) (“The question whether the district court had the authority to resentence the defendant under former Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is a legal question subject to plenary review.”); see also United States v. Maduno, 40 F.3d 1212, 1215 (11th Cir.1994) (‘Whether a court has jurisdiction over a particular case is a question of law subject to plenary review.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 114 F.3d 1085, 1087
citation_b.parenthetical: "The question whether the district court had the authority to resentence the defendant under former Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Sjeklocha, 114 F.3d 1085, 1087 (11th Cir.1997) (“The question whether the district court had the authority to resentence the defendant under former Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is a legal question subject to plenary review.”); see also United States v. Maduno, 40 F.3d 1212, 1215 (11th Cir.1994) (‘Whether a court has jurisdiction over a particular case is a question of law subject to plenary review.”).