Court Opinion

ID: 44064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 22:04:17+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:09.918669
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. 05-40582
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HENRY IVAN GARCIA-ALEMAN,
                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                   USDC No. 5:04-CR-2109-ALL
                      --------------------

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Henry Ivan Garcia-Aleman appeals his guilty plea conviction

and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.   Garcia-Aleman challenges the

constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and

aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than

as elements of the offense that must be found by a jury in light

of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

     Garcia-Aleman’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998).

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40582
                                -2-

Although Garcia-Aleman 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,

126 S. Ct. 298 (2005).   Garcia-Aleman 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-Aleman also argues that the district court erred by

ordering him to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a

condition of supervised release.   This claim is not ripe for

review on direct appeal.   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).   The claim is dismissed.     See id.

at 1102.

     JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.