explains the guidelines and provides concrete guidance as to how even unambiguous guidelines are to be applied in practice.”). There is no such stated purpose for the title, and we have held that the title of a statutory provision may be useful only when it sheds light on some ambiguous word or phrase. Adler v. Duval County Sch. Bd., 206 F.3d 1070, 1087 (11th Cir.1999), vac. on other grounds, 531 U.S. 801, 121 S.Ct. 31, 148 L.Ed.2d 3 (2000), and opinion reinstated, 250 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir.2001), cert. denied, — U.S. , 122 S.Ct. 664, 151 L.Ed.2d 579 (2001). No restriction is placed on the use of the application notes and, in fact, exactly the contrary is true— the guideline and the commentary must be “read together.” See, e.g., United States v. Pedragh, 225 F.3d 240, 244 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). See also United States v. Gay, 240 F.3d 1222,
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 holding that commentary accompanying guidelines is binding holding that guidelines and commentary have force of law that may not be disregarded by sentencing judge recognizing the guidelines commentary is authoritative holding that since the commentary is part and parcel of the sentencing guidelines manual and as the supreme court has pointed out is written by the same body that is charged with drafting the guidelines the two are to be read together