Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon RODRIGUEZ-RUIZ, also known as Jose Ramon Rodriguez-Ruiz, 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 212
Docket Number: No. 05-40698
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon RODRIGUEZ-RUIZ, also known as Jose Ramon Rodriguez-Ruiz, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 169
Pages: 212–213

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon RODRIGUEZ-RUIZ, also known as Jose Ramon Rodriguez-Ruiz, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40698.
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 Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ramon Rodriguez-Ruiz (Rodriguez) appeals his conviction and sentence following his plea of guilty to illegal reentry after deportation. Rodriguez was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Rodriguez asserts that the district court erred in ordering, as a condition of supervised release, that he cooperate with the probation officer in the collection of DNA. His claim is not ripe for judicial review in light of our holding in United States v. Riascos-Cuenu, 428 F.3d 1100, 1101-02 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert, filed (Jan. 9, 2006) (No. 05-8662). Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Rodriguez also asserts that the "felony" and "aggravated felony" provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. Rodriguez'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 Rodriguez contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrale 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 re mains 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). Rodriguez 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.
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 tire limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.