stated in the summary order issued today, we affirm the judgments of conviction and the sentences. 1 . Cox argues that there was no evidence sufficient to establish that the alleged crimes occurred on the date charged in the indictment, but we reject that claim in the summary order published concurrently with this opinion. 2 . The Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits hold that taking a gun for drugs constitutes "use” of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). See United States v. Sumler, 294 F.3d 579, 580 (3d Cir.2002) (upholding conviction because "bartering illegal drugs for a gun constitutes use”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1257, 154 L.Ed.2d 1032 (2003); United States v. Ulloa, 94 F.3d 949, 956 (5th Cir.1996); United States v. Cannon, 88 F.3d 1495, 1509 (8th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Ramirez-Rangel, 103 F.3d
recognizing this distinction holding that trading drugs for a gun violates the in furtherance of prong of  924c holding that trading drugs for a firearm constituted use under  924c1a recognizing distinction between tolling and estoppel holding that distinction between trading a gun for drugs and trading drugs for a gun is a distinction without a difference