Can a conviction for 'using fire to commit a federal felony' be predicated upon the conspiracy conduct element of a 'conspiracy to commit arson

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW . . 1.) Can a conviction for "using fire to commit a federal felony", under 18 ; U.S.C. § 844(h)(1), be predicated upon the conspiracy conduct element of a ; “conspiracy to commit arson", under 18 U.S.C. § 371, when it is legally | . impossible and absurd because "fire" cannot be "used'' in an agreement (unless co-conspirators used smoke signals, or lanterns in a belfry)? ; ~ 2.) Can a conviction for "using fire to commit a federal felony", under 18 . U.S.C. § 844(h)(1), be predicated upon "arson'' conduct in which fire was . . used, or upon the conspiracy's "overt act" (the same arson conduct) without. OO posing an "obvious double jeopardy issue!'? : oe 3.) Will the Supreme Court resolve a "Circuit Split" between the 8th Circuit : : (which allows such an § 844(h)(1) conviction) and the ist, 5th, and 7th Circuits (which does not allow such a conviction) on these very questions? = = 4.) In the alternative, if the Court does not provide habeas relief, would it . : consider relief via a. Writ of. Audita Querela or Writ De Homine Replegiando ~ : under the All Writs Act? ; ; : -1.