Changes

{{cquote|The Eleventh Circuit has not yet considered the Kisor decision in the context of Guidelines interpretive commentary. However, it has applied the Kisor framework for Auer deference in other contexts. See, e.g., United States v. US Stem Cell Clinic, LLC, 998 F.3d 1302, 1308 (11th Cir. 2021) (observing that courts faced with a challenge to an administrative rule may "[no longer] . . . simply wave the ambiguity flag and defer to the agency's interpretation"); see also Dobson v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Serv., 26 F.4th 401, 2022 WL 424813 (11th Cir. 2022) (FDA interpretation of prescription coverage provision of Medicare Part-D statute); Rafferty v. Denny's, Inc., 13 F. 4th 1166 (11th Cir. 2021) (Department of Labor interpretation of dual-jobs regulation).}}

{{cquote|The Eleventh Circuit has not yet considered the Kisor decision in the context of Guidelines interpretive commentary. However, it has applied the Kisor framework for Auer deference in other contexts. See, e.g., United States v. US Stem Cell Clinic, LLC, 998 F.3d 1302, 1308 (11th Cir. 2021) (observing that courts faced with a challenge to an administrative rule may "[no longer] . . . simply wave the ambiguity flag and defer to the agency's interpretation"); see also Dobson v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Serv., 26 F.4th 401, 2022 WL 424813 (11th Cir. 2022) (FDA interpretation of prescription coverage provision of Medicare Part-D statute); Rafferty v. Denny's, Inc., 13 F. 4th 1166 (11th Cir. 2021) (Department of Labor interpretation of dual-jobs regulation).}}

''United States v. Alford'', No. 3:21cr052/MCR, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149494, at *6 n.5 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2022).

''United States v. Alford'', No. 3:21cr052/MCR, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149494, at *6 n.5 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2022).