United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                    ___________

                                    No. 06-3942
                                    ___________

United States of America,                *
                                         *
             Appellee,                   *
                                         * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                 * District Court for the
                                         * Western District of Missouri.
Damon Flamont Smith,                     *
                                         *   [UNPUBLISHED]
             Appellant.                  *
                                    ___________

                              Submitted: August 7, 2007
                                 Filed: August 10, 2007
                                  ___________

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

PER CURIAM.

       In this direct criminal appeal of his 180-month sentence for being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), Damon Flamont Smith
challenges the district court’s1 determination that his three prior Missouri convictions
for first-degree tampering with an automobile by operation are “violent felonies”
within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).




      1
       The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri.
       Smith’s argument is unavailing. See United States v. Johnson, 

,
999 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding that risks associated with Missouri offense of tampering
by operation “are sufficient to warrant classifying it as a violent felony” for purposes
of § 924(e)), cert. denied, 

(2006); United States v. Leathers, 

, 959 (8th Cir. 2004) (one panel cannot overrule decision of another).2

      Accordingly, we affirm.
                     ______________________________




      2
        In a submission under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), Smith draws
our attention to Leocal v. Ashcroft, 

, 9-11 (2004) (construing “crime of
violence” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) to require substantial risk of use of force).
Smith’s reliance, however, is misplaced. See 

n.4 (“violent
felony” under § 924(e) differs from definition at issue in Leocal).
                                           -2-