Court Opinion

ID: 45488
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 22:38:51+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:25.286152
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                                                 Fifth Circuit
                                                              F I L E D
                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                   July 13, 2006

                                                           Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                   Clerk
                             No. 06-40147
                         Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                     Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KATHY TORRES,

                                     Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                      USDC No. 1:05-CR-674
                      --------------------

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Kathy Torres

raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v.

Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582-84 (5th Cir. 2000), which held that

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not render 21

U.S.C. § 841 unconstitutional on its face, and by United States

v. Riascos-Cuenu, 428 F.3d 1100, 1101-02 (5th Cir. 2005),

petition for cert. filed (Jan. 9, 2006) (No. 05-8662). which held

that a challenge to the district court’s order requiring the

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
                            No. 06-40147
                                 -2-

defendant to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a

condition of supervised release is not ripe for review on direct

appeal.    The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED.

     JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.