Court Opinion

ID: 43733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 21:59:58+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:04.356136
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                  June 20, 2006

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 05-20142
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SANTIAGO BARAJAS-MADRIGAL, also known as Santiago Barrajas, also
known as Santiago Madrigal Barajas, also known as Santiago M.
Barajas,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 4:04-CR-341-ALL
                      --------------------

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Santiago Barajas-Madrigal (Barajas) pleaded guilty to

illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to 30 months

of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $100

special assessment.

     Barajas 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

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-20142
                                -2-

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).

     Barajas’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 Barajas 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).   Barajas 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.