With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". falls within the category of “any other purpose.” United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 142-144 & n. 2 (4th Cir.2001). Therefore, a district court’s reduction of a term of imprisonment under Rule 35(b) has no impact on the “finality” of a defendant’s “judgment of conviction” and does not alter the “date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final” for the purposes of the statute of limitations. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). So far as we can tell, every circuit to have addressed this question agrees with our conclusion. The Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits have held that a Rule 35(b) modification does not constitute a new judgment of conviction that restarts § 2255’s statute of limitations clock. See Byers v. United States, 561 F.3d 832, 835 (8th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Sanders, 247 F.3d at 142-44 & n. 2 (“It is

A: holding that probation does not constitute a sentence
B: holding that epa regions policy statement does not constitute final agency action because it does not compel action
C: holding that aedpa does not establish a statutory high hurdle for cause
D: holding that a rule 35b modification does not constitute a final judgment and therefore does not reset the aedpa time clock
D.