United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                    ___________

                                    No. 06-3345
                                    ___________

United States of America,                *
                                         *
              Appellee,                  * Appeal from the United States
                                         * District Court for the
         v.                              * Western District of Missouri.
                                         *
Winfred Eugene Taylor, Jr.,              * [UNPUBLISHED]
                                         *
              Appellant.                 *
                                    ___________

                              Submitted: August 7, 2007
                                 Filed: August 9, 2007
                                  ___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
                            ___________

PER CURIAM.

       Winfred Eugene Taylor, Jr., challenges his sentence imposed by the district
     1
court upon his guilty plea to a drug offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(B), and 846. For reversal, he argues that a prior Missouri felony for possession
of a controlled substance, for which he received a suspended imposition of sentence
and probation, was not a final conviction for purposes of enhancement pursuant to 21
U.S.C. § 841. We affirm.



         1
        The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
       After careful de novo review of the record, see United States v. Slicer, 

, 1086 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review), we find that the facts presented here
are similar to those in cases previously decided by us--all of which applied federal law
in holding that a prior state offense for which the defendant received a suspended
imposition of sentence was a final conviction for purposes of section 841, regardless
of how state law would classify the conviction and sentence. See United States v.
Davis, 

, 912-13 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied 

(2006);

; United States v. Maxon 

, 658-59 (8th Cir.
2003); United States v. Franklin, 

, 664-65 (8th Cir. 2001); United States
v. Ortega, 

, 947-49 (8th Cir. 1998). The decision in United States v.
Stallings, 

, 921-22 (8th Cir. 2002), which applied state law to decide the
issue, does not dictate a different result here. See 

(declining to follow Stallings because facts concerning Slicer’s prior Missouri felony
drug offense and guilty plea were on all fours with Ortega and Franklin; to extent
application of federal law in Ortega and Franklin conflicted with application of state
law in Stallings, panel was free to choose which line of cases to follow); 

(also noting freedom to choose which line of cases to follow; collecting
Fifth, Third, Second Circuit cases holding that federal law controls interpretation of
§ 841).

      Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
                      ______________________________




                                          -2-