Pursuant to Kisor, are courts obligated first to determine whether a sentencing guideline is ambiguous before affording deference to the Sentencing Commission's commentary interpreting the guideline?

In Stinson v. United States , 508 U.S. 36 (1993), this Court held that commentary by the United States Sentencing Commission interpreting or explaining the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines is subject to Seminole Rock deference, now known as Auer deference. Id. at 38. In Kisor v. Wilkie , 588 U.S. 558 (2019), this Court identified strict limits on the Seminole Rock and Auer deference upon which Stinson is based, confirming that courts should defer only to reasonable interpretations of regulations that are “ genuinely ambiguous. ” Id. at 576. The federal circuits are now split as to whether Kisor ’s clarifications of Auer deference apply to Stinson and the Sentencing Guidelines. Some apply the rules articulated in Kisor , while other s apply “Stinson deference” and ignore Kisor . The questions presented are: 1. Pursuant to Kisor , are courts obligated first to determine whether a sentencing guideline is ambiguous before affording deference to the Sentencing Commission ’s commentary interpreting the guideline? 2. When calculating Daniel Stewart ’s guideline range , did the courts below err by relying on the Sentencing Commission ’s commentary to interpret § 4B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines , instead of § 4B1.1’ s plain text ?