Did the Seventh Circuit err by concluding Mr. Ferguson's § 844(i) arson conviction was not overbroad?

The Seventh Circuit decided Quintin Ferguson’s 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) arson conviction was a crime of violence that subjected him to United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) § 4B1.1(a) penalty. However, § 844(i) is overbroad. It requires that a defendant “ma liciously 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 comme rce”. By comparison, c ommon law arson and stat utory versions used by most states require that the property affected by arson: belong to another person; or that the property was damaged, etc. by its owner to collect insurance proceeds. Mr. Ferguson a rgued on appeal that § 844(i) arson was categorically overbroad relative to common law arson and states statutory versions of arson. Did the Seventh Circuit err by concluding Mr. Ferguson’s § 844(i) arson conviction was not overbroad?