Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo RODRIGUEZ-CAMPOS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-23
Citations: 169 F. App'x 232
Docket Number: No. 05-40194
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo RODRIGUEZ-CAMPOS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 169
Pages: 232–233

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo RODRIGUEZ-CAMPOS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40194.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 23, 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, H. Michael Sokolow, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ricardo Rodriguez-Campos (Rodriguez) pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He contends that the district court erred by 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 contends that 8 UiS.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional and that this court should vacate his sentence and remand his case for resentencing to no more than two years in prison under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). As he concedes, this contention is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.