Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Jose ROMERO-VILLARREAL, 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 432
Docket Number: No. 05-40469
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Jose ROMERO-VILLARREAL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 176
Pages: 432–432

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Jose ROMERO-VILLARREAL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40469.
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, Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, 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:
Juan Jose Romero-Villarreal (Romero) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for possession with the intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). He argues that the district court erred by ordering him to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a condition of supervised release. Romero's claim is not ripe for review on direct appeal. 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). The claim is dismissed. See id. at 1102.
As Romero correctly notes, his additional argument, made for the first time on appeal, that the district court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him because 21 U.S.C. § 841 is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.