offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2X3.1(a). Application Note 1 to that section defines “underlying offense” as “the offense as to which the defendant is convicted of being an accessory.” Id,., Application Note 1. It further directs the sentencing court to “Mpply the base offense level plus any applicable specific offense characteristics that were known, or reasonably should have been known by the defendant.” Id. Thus, § 2X3.1, applied in isolation, would only extend the reasonable-knowledge requirement to “specific offense characteristics” of the underlying offense. Application Note 1 to § 2X3.1, however, casts doubt on this conclusion by directing-courts to “see Application Note 10 of the Commentary to § 1B1.3.” Id. Application Note 10 states that for “solicitation, misprision, or access .2001) (<HOLDING>); but see United States v. Cihak, 137 F.3d 252,
holdingthat in determining base offense level in a rico case district court should not limit its relevant conduct to predicate acts charged against the defendant but instead should consider all conduct reasonably foreseeable to the defendant in furtherance of the rico enterprise holding that ussg  1b13 application note 10 brought in by the crossreference in section 2x31 extends the reasonable knowledge requirement to all conduct relevant to determining the offense level for the underlying offense  holding that when the relevant conduct of the larger conspiracy is not taken into account in establishing a defendants base offense level a reduction pursuant to ussg  3b12 is not warranted holding that in determining whether a crime is a continuing offense the court must focus on the nature of the substantive offense and not on the specific characteristics of the conduct in the case at issue holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense