that “Joshua, under certain circumstances, permits courts in this circuit to consider subsequent amfffffffffendments to official guidelines commentary when interpreting prior guidelines, even if the new commentary conflicts with a panel’s decision rendered pri- or to the amendment”). Our sister circuits abide by that self-same principle. See, e.g., Williams v. Ashland Eng’g Co., 45 F.3d 588, 592 (1st Cir.) (“An existing panel decision may be undermined by controlling authority, subsequently announced, such as an opinion of the Supreme Court, an en banc opinion of the circuit court, or a statutory overruling.”), cert. denied, — U.S. --, 116 S.Ct. 51, 133 L.Ed.2d 16 (1995); Mesa Verde Constr. Co. v. Northern Cal. Dist. Council of Laborers, 861 F.2d 1124, 1136 (9th Cir.1988) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); Landreth v. Commissioner, 859 F.2d 643, 648
recognizing that deference to an agencys interpretation of the written law is appropriate only when that interpretation is within the written laws language holding that a three judge panel is free to reexamine the holding of a prior panel when the supreme court has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable holding that one panel of this court is not bound by dicta in a previously published panel opinion holding that one panel of this court is bound by the precedent of an earlier panel absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision of the supreme court holding that if a panel finds that a nlrb interpretation of the labor laws is reasonable and consistent with those laws the panel may adopt that interpretation even if circuit precedent is to the contrary