Cir.2001). While all children are certainly harmed by child pornography, the actual child depicted or receiving such pornography is “the primary, identifiable victim.” Id. The Court thus is very concerned about allowing the Guidelines to expand the definition of the primary victims of child pornography — minors—beyond the definition provided for in the statute. In this case, the victim for which the enhancement was created is an adult. Therefore, given Booker, the Court is not inclined to impose a Guidelines enhancement that expands a definition beyond its statutory confines. The Guidelines commentary, in this Court’s view, is plainly inconsistent with the statute if the Government’s view is adopted. See Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38, 113 S.Ct. 1913, 123 L.Ed.2d 598 (1993)(<HOLDING>). Moreover, although Justice Breyer’s opinion
holding that where the commentary to a guideline is at odds with another provision of the guidelines the guideline prevails holding that sentencing guidelines commentary must be given controlling weight unless it violates the constitution or a federal statute or is plainly inconsistent with the guidelines itself recognizing the guidelines commentary is authoritative holding that guidelines commentary is generally authoritative holding that commentary in the guidelines manual that interprets or explains a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the constitution or a federal statute or is inconsistent with or a plainly erroneous reading of that guideline