not appear to contest these facts. Sayavong also testified that the shack was used only as a guard shack, and that Long told him that Long brought the rifle and the silenced submachine gun to the shack for the purpose of protecting the marijuana crop from potential thieves. We note that the language of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) says “uses or carries” but the language of the superseding indictment says “use and carry.” However, “[w]hen a jury returns a guilty verdict on an indictment charging several acts in the conjunctive ... the verdict stands if the evidence is sufficient with respect to any one of the acts charged.” Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 420, 90 S.Ct. 642, 24 L.Ed.2d 610 (1970) (citations omitted). See also United States v. Simpson, 228 F.3d 1294, 1299 (11th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Although the government’s evidence with
holding that when an indictment charges several acts in the conjunctive  the verdict stands if the evidence is sufficient with respect to any one of the acts charged holding that where an indictment charges violations of both  1956a1a and  1956a1b the statute only requires proof on one or the other holding although indictment may allege manner and means of committing offense in the conjunctive jury may be charged in the disjunctive and a conviction on any method alleged will be upheld if the evidence supports it holding that conviction on second firearms offense even though charged in the same indictment as the first gives rise to enhanced sentence under 18 usc  924c1 holding that for purposes of 18 usc  924c1 the law is well established that where an indictment charges in the conjunctive several means of violating a statute a conviction may be obtained on proof of only one of the means 