for consecutive sentences that the [firearms sentencing] statute contains.”); United States v. Schweitzer 960 F.2d 405, 408 (5th Cir.1992) (“All of the United States Courts of Appeal have agreed that statutorily mandated sentences ... prevail over the guidelines when in apparent conflict.”), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1003, 113 S.Ct. 609, 121 L.Ed.2d 544 (1992). But see United States v. Pardo, 25 F.3d 1187, 1193-94 (3d Cir.1994) (treating failure to appear as obstruction of justice enhancement to underlying fraud offense by applying grouping rules). The Sentencing Guidelines acknowledge that some statutes, like the firearms sentencing statute, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), require the “imposition of a consecutive sentence.” U.S.S.G. § 3Dl.l(b). Statutes with such a requirement ar (M.D.Fla.1996) (<HOLDING>), aff'd mem., 136 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir.1998).
holding that where the commentary to a guideline is at odds with another provision of the guidelines the guideline prevails 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 which is interpretive and instructive to application of a guideline is binding on federal courts holding that commentary in sentencing guidelines that interprets or explains a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the constitution or a federal statute or unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the guideline it interprets holding that a sentencing guideline prevails over its commentary if the two are inconsistent