Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leodegario GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-23
Citations: 168 F. App'x 657
Docket Number: No. 05-40830
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leodegario GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 168
Pages: 657–658

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leodegario GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40830.
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, Philip G. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Leodegario Guzman appeals his conviction and sentence following his guilty plea to importation of more than one kilogram of heroin into the United States. Guzman correctly notes that his 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).
Guzman also argues for the first time on appeal that the district court abused its discretion when it imposed a condition of supervised release that requires him to cooperate in the collection of his DNA. Guzman's claim 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). Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to review this claim.
AFFIRMED IN PART; 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.