of both defense counsel and the United States Attorney in this matter. Their conduct exemplifies the principle, often overlooked, that cooperation with opposing counsel, candor before the court, and zealous representation of the client are not mutually exclusive concepts. 5 . But see United States v. Green, No. 02-CR-10054, - F.Supp.2d -,-2004 WL 1381101, at *16-24 (D.Mass. June 18, 2004); State v. Gould, 271 Kan. 394, 23 P.3d 801, 812-14 (2001). 6 . Cf. United States v. Watts,, 519 U.S. 148, 157, 117 S.Ct 633, 136 L.Ed.2d 554 (1997) (per curiam) (upholding Guidelines against Double Jeopardy Clause challenge); Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389, 406, 115 S.Ct. 2199, 132 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995) (same); Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38-39, 113 S.Ct. 1913, 123 L.Ed.2d 598 (1993) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 96,
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 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 guidelines commentary is generally authoritative holding that commentary accompanying guidelines is binding