Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel RODRIGUEZ-MOCTEZUMA, aka Carlos Lopez-Moctezuma, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-11
Citations: 176 F. App'x 438
Docket Number: No. 05-40868
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel RODRIGUEZ-MOCTEZUMA, aka Carlos Lopez-Moctezuma, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 176
Pages: 438–439

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel RODRIGUEZ-MOCTEZUMA, aka Carlos Lopez-Moctezuma, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40868.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided April 11, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, H. Michael Sokolow, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Joel Rodriguez-Moctezuma pleaded guilty to being found unlawfully in the United States after deportation and was sentenced to 72 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. As a condition of supervised release, Rodriguez-Moctezuma was ordered to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as directed by his probation officer.
Rodriguez-Moetezuma argues that the district court erred in ordering him to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a condition of supervised release. This claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it is not ripe for review. See United States v. Riascos-Cuenu, 428 F.3d 1100, 1101-02 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 9, 2006) (No. 05-8662).
Rodriguez-Moctezuma's constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Rodriguez-Moctezuma 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 AlmendarezTorres 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). Rodriguez-Moctezuma 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.
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.