Court Opinion

ID: 41127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 20:59:50+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:06.284772
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                                            Fifth Circuit

               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                          F I L E D
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT             February 23, 2006

                                                       Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                               Clerk
                            No. 05-40416
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARMANDO RAMIREZ-TRUJILLO,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 5:04-CR-1906-ALL
                       --------------------

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Armando Ramirez-Trujillo (Ramirez) pleaded guilty

to illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to 71

months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a

$100 special assessment.

     Ramirez argues for the first time on appeal that the

district court erred in ordering him to cooperate in the

collection of a DNA sample as a condition of supervised release.

This claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it is

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40416
                                -2-

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).

     Ramirez’s constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224,

235 (1998).   Although Ramirez 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 (2000), 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, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005).   Ramirez 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 FOR LACK OF

JURISDICTION.