, as the district court noted, it better captures the element of a letter seeking to threaten or intimidate a public official. The majority of the 2A6.I listed offenses concern threats of harm. SeeU.S.S.G. § 2A6.1. By contrast, most (though admittedly not all) of the offenses listed as predicates f

. app. A; United States Gunwall, 1998 WL 482787, at *3 (10th Cir.I99 . And, in fact, guideline 211.2 imposes sentences more akin to those found in 2A6.I, the provision employed by the district court in this case. For example, given Mr. Rakes's offense conduct and criminal history, his 2A6.I advisor