(1995) or the commentary to USSG § 2G2.2 (1995). Specifically, neither the plain language of USSG § 2G2.2(b)(4) (1995) nor the commentary to USSG § 2G2.2 (1995) necessarily included the trafficking in material relating to the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor in the term “sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor” as found in USSG § 2G2.2(b)(4) (1995). Instead, the term “sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor” is ambiguous in the sense that it is reasonably susceptible to both an interpretation including the trafficking in material relating to the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor and an interpretation not including such conduct. In addition, at the time of the amendment there was no Fourth Circuit precedent contrary to the amendment. Cf. Capers, 61 F.3d at 1110-11 (<HOLDING>). Under these circumstances, we accept the
holding reves standard narrower than existing second circuit precedent holding that a condition was precedent to performance because the contract language did not explicitly state that it was precedent to formation holding a guideline amendment substantive primarily because it contradicted existing circuit precedent holding that a three judge panel is not bound by prior circuit precedent if an intervening decision of a higher authority undercuts the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable holding that an intervening supreme court case can overturn circuit precedent