favor.” Cabaccang, 332 F.3d at 635 (quotation marks omitted). After considering the text, structure, history and purpose of the statute, we are left with “a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statute.” Barber, 130 S.Ct. at 2508-09(inter-nal quotation marks omitted). The ambiguity in the statute is particularly highlighted when contrasting the two separate interpretations offered by the government and the dissent. The dissent claims that supervised released never commenced so there is nothing to stay while the government claims the stay kicks in upon certification but is somehow lifted once commitment is ordered. Both of these approaches cannot be correct nor can they be squared with our interpretation which endeavors to reconcile all three of the relevant statutes. See id. (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks and citation
holding that the rule of lenity applies only if the provision being construed is still ambiguous after the application of normal rules of construction recognizing that the rule of lenity only applies if after considering text structure history and purpose there remains a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statute such that the court must simply guess as to what congress intended holding that the rule of lenity applies to sentencing guidelines recognizing that the rule of lenity applies only after courts exhaust all other evidence of congressional meaning holding that the rule of lenity ensures fair warning by so resolving ambiguity in a criminal statute as to apply it only to conduct clearly covered