covered by § 2A2.2 involves a single victim. United States v. Moore, 997 F.2d 30, 36-37 (5th Cir.1993). Even an intentional assault with respect to the victim may be committed in an excessively reckless manner with regard to others. Indeed, courts have acknowledged that endangering third parties is a valid basis for departure in similar circumstances. See, e.g., Wolfe, 435 F.3d at 1300 (observing that an upward departure for excessive reckless may be warranted when the defendant’s conduct poses a threat to public safety); United States v. Hardy, 99 F.3d 1242, 1249-52 (1st Cir.1996) (rejecting a challenge to a sentencing court’s upward departure based on the unusual level of risk to others associated with defendant’s illegal possession of firearms under § 5K2.0); Moore, 997 F.2d at 37 (<HOLDING>). Section 2A2.2 does not take into
holding that a court may depart upward based upon a third partys injury in an assault case holding that the trial court may not depart downward based on the quantity of money stolen in a theft case based on the reasoning in atwaters recognizing that a defendant may appeal a district courts refusal to depart downward if the sentence was imposed in violation of law because the district court misconstrued its authority to depart holding that a district court may depart upward based upon a significant number of fraudulent schemes conducted by the defendant holding that a district court may depart upward based upon based criminal conduct when such conduct is not included in the computation of criminal history category