the imprisonment authorized absent the enhancement. See USSG § 2J1.7, comment, (n. 2). Guideline commentary, like a government agency’s interpretation of its own rules, is to be given controlling weight unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, is plainly erroneous, or is inconsistent with the guideline provision that it explains. See Stinson v. United States, — U.S. —, —, 113 S.Ct. 1913, 1919, 123 L.Ed.2d 598 (1993). We agree with Stevens that the example provided by the commentary to § 2J1.7 is inconsistent with that guideline. As previously discussed, the purpose of § 2J1.7 is to effectuate § 3147 by providing for additional punishment to that required by the guidelines for the offense of conviction. See United States v. Wilson, 966 F.2d 243, 248-49 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); see also Stevens I, 985 F.2d at 1189 (citing
holding that prison term attributable to offense of conviction must fall within permissible range absent  2j17 enhancement holding an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction is valid because no prison term was imposed and the conviction may be used to enhance a sentence for a subsequent offense holding that involuntary commitment to a mental hospital is not within the range of conditions of confinement to which a prison sentence subjects an individual holding that the application of the enhancement for using a firearm in connection with another felony offense is proper only if there is a clear connection between the firearm that was used in the other offense and the one that was used in the offense of conviction holding that copayment requirements for prison medical services is constitutionally permissible