Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kathy TORRES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-13
Citations: 190 F. App'x 393
Docket Number: No. 06-40147
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kathy TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 190
Pages: 393–394

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kathy TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-40147
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 13, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Raquel Kathy Wilson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Kathy Torres raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582-84 (5th Cir.2000), which held that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), did not render 21 U.S.C. § 841 unconstitutional on its face, and by United States v. Riascos-Cuenu, 428 F.3d 1100, 1101-02 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 9, 2006) (No. 05-8662). which held that a challenge to the district court's order requiring the defendant to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a condition of supervised release is not ripe for review on direct appeal. The Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.