Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Antonio GONZALEZ-MONGUIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-20
Citations: 185 F. App'x 393
Docket Number: No. 05-40234
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Antonio GONZALEZ-MONGUIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 185
Pages: 393–394

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Antonio GONZALEZ-MONGUIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05—40234
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 20, 2006.
Paula Camille Offenhauser, James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Juan Antonio Gonzalez-Monguia (Gonzalez) pleaded guilty to being found in the United States unlawfully after deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He was sentenced to 68 months of imprisonment, to be served consecutively to a six-month term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised release on an alien-smuggling offense. The district court also imposed a three-year term of supervised release.
Gonzalez's constitutional challenge to § 1326 is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Gonzalez 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). Gonzalez 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.
Gonzalez argues 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 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.
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.