Case ID: f-appx_218/html/0310-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando ARELLANO-DELGADO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-40954
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 14, 2007.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Armando Arellano-Delgado appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for attempted unlawful reentry into the United States after deportation for an aggravated felony conviction. He was sentenced to 72 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.

Arellano argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. Arellano’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Arellano contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, —U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Arellano properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

Arellano also argues that the district court erred in ordering him to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a condition of supervised release and, therefore, that this condition should be vacated. As Arellano concedes, this claim is not ripe for review. See United States v. Carmichael, 343 F.3d 756, 761-62 (5th Cir.2003). Accordingly, this portion of the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.