We review de novo the district court’s construction and interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines, but review the district court’s application of the Guidelines to the facts only for clear error. See United States v. Holland, 195 F.3d 415, 416 (8th Cir.1999). A. Base Offense Level Charles first argues that his base offense level should have been twenty, not twenty-four. Where a defendant is charged with the unlawful possession of a firearm and has at least two prior felony convictions of a crime of violence or controlled substance offense, the base offense level is twenty-four. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2) (1999). Charles does not dispute that his two commercial burglary convictions are crimes of violence. See generally United States v. Hascall, 76 F.3d 902, 906 (8th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). He argues, however, that the convictions are
holding that  459 is categorically a crime of violence under guidelines  4b12a2 because the usual or ordinary firstdegree burglary in california involves conduct that presents a serious risk of physical violence and injury to others holding that iowa burglary is not categorical burglary as the elements of iowa burglary law are broader than those of generic burglary holding that washington seconddegree assault with a deadly weapon statute was a crime of violence under guidelines section 4b12a1 without considering whether it was a per se crime of violence under the application notes holding that burglary of commercial building is crime of violence under guidelines holding that theft from the person is not a crime of violence