With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". We agree with this assessment. Because a crime of violence necessarily contemplates a victim, we reject Drapeau’s contention that making a bomb is a victimless crime. We now turn to the question of whether the district court clearly erred in its finding that Officer Sazue was a “victim” of making the firebombs. Because the Sentencing Guidelines do not define the term “victim,” we look to the term’s plain and ordinary meaning in interpreting the Guidelines. See Un .2d 390 (1997); United States v. McCaleb, 908 F.2d 176, 179 (7th Cir.1990) (“Nothing in the ... guidelines requires that the victim be harmed or made aware of the threat.”). It is enough that the intended victim of the crime was a government official. Cf. United States v. Duran, 891 F.Supp. 629, 633 (D.D.C.1995) (<HOLDING>). As found by the district court, Drapeau and

A: holding that the erroneous admission of a hearsay statement that identified the defendant as the shooter was harmless where the defendant never contested that he shot the gun but claimed only that he shot in selfdefense
B: holding that a 3a12a enhancement was appropriate for attempted murder of the president although the defendant mistakenly shot at a lookalike
C: holding that attempted felony murder was abolished
D: holding that there is no crime of attempted felony murder in florida
B.