Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfredo GARCIA-ARIOLA, 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 619
Docket Number: No. 05-20402
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfredo GARCIA-ARIOLA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 168
Pages: 619–620

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfredo GARCIA-ARIOLA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-20402.
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:
Alfredo Gareia-Ariola appeals his sentence for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b).
Gareia-Ariola challenges, for the first time on appeal, the constitutionality of § 1326(b)'s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Garcia-Ariola'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 Defendant contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, 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). Garcia-Ariola 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. Garcia-Ariola's sentence is affirmed.
Garcia-Ariola also argues, for the first time on appeal, that the district court erred by ordering him to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a condition of his supervised release and that this condition should therefore be vacated. 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).
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.