* The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3376

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 * Christopher Haney, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant.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

___________ Submitted: February 15, 2006 Filed: April 5, 2006

___________ Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. After Christopher Haney reportedly flour ished a weapon, police arrested him and found a 9mm handgun in his possession. The Government charged Haney with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Haney pleaded guilty and the district court * sentenced him to the minimum 180 months in prison under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (any person who violates § 922(g) and has at least three earlier violent felony convictions sha ll be imprisoned for not less than fifteen years). On appeal, Haney contends he does not qualify for sentencing under § 924(e)-2- because his Missouri conviction for failure to return to confinement in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 575.220 should not qualify as a violent felony.
Section 924(e)(2)(b) defines a violent felony as any crime punishable by more than a year in prison that either “(i) ha s as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical for ce against the person of another, or (ii) . . . otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious poten tial risk of physical injury to another.” A “violent felony within the meaning of § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) includes any crime whose elements involve conduct that necessarily pr esents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” United States v. McCall , No. 04-1143, 2006 WL 625687, at *3 (8 th Cir. Mar. 15, 2006) (en banc). We generally look only to the fact of conviction and the earlier offense’s statutory definition. Id. at *2.
Missouri defines the crime of failing to return to confinement as occurring when (1) a defendant is serving a sentence, (2) the sentence temporarily permits the defendant to go at large without a guard, and (3) the defendant purposefully fails to return to confinement when required. Mo . Rev. Stat. § 575.220.1. We have already held that all escapes, including walkaway escapes, are crimes of violence. United States v. Abernathy , 277 F.3d 1048, 1051 (8 thCir. 2002). This is so because “[e]ven the most peaceful escape cannot eliminate th e potential for violent conflict when the authorities attempt to recapture the escapee.” United States v. Nation , 243 F.3d 467, 472 (8 thCir. 2001). The offense carries the inherent potential for harm to someone. See McCall , 2006 WL 625687, at *3. We recently heldthere is no material distinction between a walkaway escape and a failure to return to conf inement as defined in Mo. Rev. Stat. 575.220.1. United States v. Adams , No. 05-2180, 2006 WL 721793, at *2 (8 thCir. Mar. 23, 2006). We are bound by our earlier decisions, and lack authority as a panel to overrule them . United States v. Prior , 107 F.3d 654, 660 (8 thCir. 1997).-3- Because the district court properly conc luded Haney’s convic tion for failure to return to confinement qualified as an ear lier violent felony unde r § 924(e), we affirm Haney’s sentence.

______________________________