United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                    ___________

                                    No. 06-2901
                                    ___________

United States of America,                *
                                         *
             Appellee,                   *
                                         * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                 * District Court for the
                                         * Eastern District of Missouri.
Kobyashi Jones,                          *      [UNPUBLISHED]
                                         *
             Appellant.                  *
                                    ___________

                              Submitted: May 31, 2007
                                 Filed: June 4, 2007
                                  ___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
                         ___________

PER CURIAM.

       In this direct criminal appeal of his 180-month prison sentence for being a felon
in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), Kobyashi Jones
challenges the district court’s1 determination that one of his prior convictions is a
“violent felony” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), which resulted in his
classification as an armed career criminal under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(a). Upon de novo
review, see United States v. Bockes, 

, 1092 (8th Cir. 2006), we affirm.



      1
        The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
       It is undisputed that Jones had a prior felony conviction for the offense of
tampering in the first degree, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.080.1(2) (1999),
based on his conduct in operating a jeep without the owner’s consent. Jones’s
argument on appeal is therefore foreclosed by United States v. Johnson, 

,
997 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding that Missouri offense of tampering by operation is
violent felony for purposes of § 924(e)), cert. denied, 

(2006). Although
Jones contends that Johnson is wrongly decided, we are not, sitting as a panel, at
liberty to overrule Johnson. See Jackson v. Ault, 

, 736 (8th Cir. 2006)
(only en banc court can overturn panel decision), cert. denied, 

(2007).

      Accordingly, we affirm.
                     ______________________________




                                         -2-