Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Winfred Eugene TAYLOR, Jr., Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-09
Citations: 230 F. App'x 643
Docket Number: No. 06-3345
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Winfred Eugene TAYLOR, Jr., Appellant.
Judges: Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 230
Pages: 643–644

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Winfred Eugene TAYLOR, Jr., Appellant.
No. 06-3345.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 7, 2007.
Filed: Aug. 9, 2007.
F.A. White, Jr., Kansas City, MO, for appellant.
Catherine A. Connelly, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO (Bradley J. Schlozman, U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Winfred Eugene Taylor, Jr., challenges his sentence imposed by the district 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 convic tion for purposes of enhancement pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841. We affirm.
After careful de novo review of the record, see United States v. Slicer, 361 F.3d 1085, 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, 417 F.3d 909, 912-13 (8th Cir.2005), cert. denied 546 U.S. 1144, 126 S.Ct. 1160, 163 L.Ed.2d 1011 (2006); Slicer, 361 F.3d at 1086-87; United States v. Maxon, 339 F.3d 656, 658-59 (8th Cir.2003); United States v. Franklin, 250 F.3d 653, 664-65 (8th Cir.2001); United States v. Ortega, 150 F.3d 937, 947-49 (8th Cir.1998). The decision in United States v. Stallings, 301 F.3d 919, 921-22 (8th Cir.2002), which applied state law to decide the issue, does not dictate a different result here. See Slicer, 361 F.3d at 1086-87 (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); Maxon, 339 F.3d at 659 (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.
. The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.