as "encouraged" for departure. The overbreadth of this interpretation is apparent. In reality, the Court specified that this definition applied to the particular factors cited in Part 5K. Before rendering the definition, the Court stated: "The Commission provides considerable guidance as to the factors that are apt or not apt to make a case atypical, by listing certain factors as either encouraged or discouraged bases for departure.” Koon, 518 U.S. at 94, 116 S.Ct. 2035. A panel of this circuit has even mislabeled an analogous factor as "encouraged” under this broad definition. See United States v. Shumway, 112 F.3d 1413, 1428 (10th Cir.1997). Because that mischaracterization was dicta, we are not bound by it. See, e.g., Bates v. Dep’t of Corrections, 81 F.3d 1008, 1011 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); see also OXY USA, Inc. v. Babbitt, 230 F.3d
holding that a panel of this court cannot overturn a prior panels decision holding that a panel of this court is bound by a holding of a prior panel but is not bound by a prior panels dicta holding that one panel of this court is not bound by dicta in a previously published panel opinion holding that court is bound by prior panels interpretation of supreme court decision holding that a prior panel decision is binding on subsequent panels