Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mariano ORNELAS-ARAIZA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-14
Citations: 218 F. App'x 309
Docket Number: No. 06-40631
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mariano ORNELAS-ARAIZA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 218
Pages: 309–310

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mariano ORNELAS-ARAIZA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-40631
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 Dis trict 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.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mariano Ornelas-Araiza (Ornelas) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being an alien found unlawfully in the United States after deportation and after having been convicted of an aggravated felony. He was sentenced to 77 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
Ornelas argues that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. Ornelas'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 Ornelas 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). Ornelas 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.
Ornelas 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 Ornelas 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.