With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". appeal that the district court erred in conducting this analysis, and the record otherwise does not reveal such an error. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.l(A)); Moore, 541 F.3d at 1328. The district court is not permitted to analyze whether the sentence was unconstitutional. See Moreno, 421 F.3d at 1220; Bravo, 203 F.3d at 781-82. Accordingly, the district court did not err in failing to do so, and we affirm. AFFIRMED. 1 . As a preliminary matter, the district court had, and we have, subject matter jurisdiction over Bateman’s motion for modification of sentence. Although Bateman filed the motion before Amendment 706 became retroactively applicable on March 3, 2008, the district court ruled on the motion after this date. See United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th Cir.2008)

A: holding that the district court and this court had subject matter jurisdiction over the defendants motion for modification of sentence based on amendment 706 even though the defendant filed the motion before march 3 2008 because the district court ruled on the motion after that date
B: holding district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the document before the district court in this instance is not a vehicle for any recognized legal remedy under the rules
C: holding the fourteen day provision in rule 35a is jurisdictional and reinstating defendants original sentence when defendant was originally sentenced on march 1st defendant filed a rule 35a motion on march 5th the district court held a hearing on the rule 35 motion on march 29th and resentenced defendant on april 12th
D: holding that a motion to continue a hearing on a postjudgment motion was ineffective to extend the period for the trial court to rule on the motion absent the express consent of the parties
A.