potential loss instead of reasonably foreseeable loss — this Court should remand for resentencing and instruct the district court to make a finding about what loss, if any, [she] could reasonably have foreseen.” Id. We conclude, however, that Crowe’s arguments are contrary to the clear language of U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 and its accompanying commentary. Section 2Bl.l(b)(l) states that a district court shall enhance a defendant’s base offense level “[i]f the loss exceeded $5,000.” Depending upon the specific amount of the loss, this enhancement can range from 2 to 30 levels. U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b)(l)(A)-(P). Application Note 3 to § 2B1.1 fleshes out how the district court is to calculate “loss.” See generally, Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38, 113 S.Ct. 1913, 123 L.Ed.2d 598 (1993) (<HOLDING>). To begin with, Application Note 3 provides
holding that where the commentary to a guideline is at odds with another provision of the guidelines the guideline prevails holding that guidelines commentary is generally authoritative recognizing the guidelines commentary is 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 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