Court Opinion

ID: 41176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 21:00:44+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:10.142875
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                February 23, 2006

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 05-40635
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BALDOMERO ACUNA-SALAZAR,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 7:04-CR-279-ALL
                      --------------------

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Baldomero Acuna-Salazar (Acuna) pleaded guilty to illegal

reentry after deportation and was sentenced to 70 months of

imprisonment and two years of supervised release.   Acuna’s

constitutional challenge to the “felony” and “aggravated felony”

provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is foreclosed by

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

Although Acuna contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly

decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40635
                                -2-

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).   Acuna 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.

     Acuna also argues that the district court erred in ordering

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

of supervised release 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).

     JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.