nclusion that a defendant does not have to subjectively know that his or her conduct created a serious bodily risk, is correct."); United States u. Johanson, 249 F.3d 848, 859 (9th Cir. 2001) ("We do not believe that a defendant can escape the application of the serious risk of injury enhancement by cla

eaningless, which is nonsensical in light of the Section's disjunctive phrasing, i.e., "conscious or reckless risk." See Maestas, 642 F.3d at 1321; Johanson, 249 F.3d at 858; Lucien, 347 F.3d at 56. The facts of this case, however, do not require that we decide today whether the enhancement applied by

cer- emony in Jerusalem referred in- correctly to Scarlett Johansson’s departure from the charity Oxfam. She resigned as