foregoing reasons, as well as 1506 (9th Cir.1997) (applying Smith rule that "[t]here is no question that bartering a firearm for drugs constitutes ‘use’ of the weapon” to defendants who sold drugs for guns, without acknowledging post -Bailey circuit split). Ranged' on the other side are the Sixth, Seventh, and District of Columbia Circuits. See United States v. Stewart, 246 F.3d 728, 731 (D.C.Cir.2001) (“[A] person who receives a gun in a trade for drugs has not used the gun in violation of § 924(c).”); United States v. Warwick, 167 F.3d 965, 975-76 (6th Cir. 1999); United States v. Westmoreland, 122 F.3d 431, 435 (7th Cir.1997). The Fourth Circuit has not considered the issue since the Supreme Court decided Bailey. Cf. United States v. Harris, 39 F.3d 1262, 1269-70 (4th Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>). This particular circuit split may dissipate
holding that for purposes of  4b12 possession of a sawedoff shotgun in violation of  5861d is a crime of violence because by its very nature a sawedoff shotgun always creates a serious risk of physical injury to another holding that evidence obtained following the polices unconstitutional search of the defendants backpack which was not with the defendant at the time of the search and in which the police found a sawedoff shotgun was sufficiently far from the unconstitutional search because the challenged evidence was obtained as a result of the polices decision to pursue the defendant a decision they would have made even absent finding the sawedoff shotgun because the defendant was a person of interest in their underlying investigation holding that possession of a sawed off shotgun is a crime of violence holding before bailey that defendant who gave crack to another person in exchange for obtaining a shotgun with money provided by defendant had used shotgun under 18 usc  924c1 holding police officers uncontradicted testimony that defendant admitted he acquired shotgun for protection sufficient to establish knowing possession