those interpretations have the “power to persuade.” Id. The Court goes on to note an exception to this rule; when the language of a regulation is ambiguous, we defer to otherwise non-binding interpretations to allow the agency to interpret its own regulations. See id. (citing Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 117 S.Ct. 905, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997)). Although plaintiffs cite a number of other cases holding that we must defer to agency policy statements unless they are “demonstrably irrational,” those cases either deal with rules made through formal procedures see Lifanda v. Elmhurst Dodge, Inc., 237 F.3d 803, 809 (7th Cir.2001) (discussing a final rule which amended a regulation); special cases, see, e.g., Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 44-45, 113 S.Ct. 1913, 123 L.Ed.2d 598 (1993) (<HOLDING>), or precedent superceded by Christensen.
holding that guidelines and commentary have force of law that may not be disregarded by sentencing judge holding that commentary to the guidelines is treated as an agencys interpretation of its own legislative rule holding that amendments to the sentencing guidelines commentary should be treated as legislative rulemaking due to a unique grant of power from congress holding that commentary accompanying guidelines is binding recognizing the guidelines commentary is authoritative