fashioned to punish the illegal use of fire or explosives. In drafting the statute, Congress placed section 844(i); the federal arson statute, immediately after section 844(h). Section 844(i) provides in part: Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property used in interstate or foreign commerce or in- any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce shall be imprisoned for not more than ten years or fined not more than $10,000, or both.... 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). If Congress had intended section 844(h)(1) to apply only to arson cases, as the defendants maintain, then no need would exist for section 844(i) and vice versa. Surely Congress did not inten 6 (7th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Karlic, 997 F.2d
holdingthat an error in instructing the jury that an offense could be committed by a statutory method not charged in the indictment is cured where  the court provides the jury with the indictment and instructs jurors that the burden of proof rests upon the state to prove every material allegation of the indictment and every essential element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt  citation omitted holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense holding that the amendment made to the indictment in this case was not authorized by code  192231 because the amended indictment materially changed the nature of the offense originally charged holding that the pre1982 amended version of section 844h1 and section 844i cannot be charged in the same indictment when identical evidence is used to prove both holding that the 1999 version of the sorp like the 1997 version is nonpunitive in both intent and effect