excluded from the grouping rules in U.S.S.G. §§ 3D1.2-3D1.5. See id. The grouping rules, if applicable, require a sentencing court to use a failure to appear conviction as an upward adjustment for obstruction of justice of the underlying conviction. U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(c). If the grouping rules are not applicable because a statute requires a consecutive sentence, U.S.S.G. § 3Dl.l(b) dictates that U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(a) governs, which, in turn, requires that when a statute mandates a consecutive sentence it “shall be determined and imposed independently.” Because Commentary 3 to U.S.S.G. § 2J1.6 is inconsistent with two of the Sentencing Guidelines, the Sentencing Guidelines must prevail over the commentary. See Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 43, 113 S.Ct. 1913, 123 L.Ed.2d 598 (1993) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Emigh, 933 F.Supp. 1055,
holding that commentary is not authoritative if it is inconsistent with or a plainly erroneous reading of the guideline it interprets or explains holding that a sentencing guideline prevails over its commentary if the two are inconsistent holding that where the commentary to a guideline is at odds with another provision of the guidelines the guideline prevails 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 holding that sentencing guidelines commentary which is interpretive and instructive to application of a guideline is binding on federal courts