Court Opinion

ID: 8600252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-23 21:31:08.811108+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:10.008832
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM: *
Hector Ramos-Mendiola (Ramos) appeals his conviction and sentence following his guilty plea to possession of more than 100 kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute. Ramos argues for the first time on appeal that the district court abused its discretion when it imposed a condition of supervised release that requires him to cooperate in the collection of his DNA. Ramos’s claim 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). Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to review this claim, and this portion of the appeal is dismissed.
Ramos correctly notes that his argument, made for the first time on appeal, that the district court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him because 21 U.S.C. § 841 is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir.2000). Ramos’s conviction is affirmed.
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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.