United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 14, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-40771
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE ANTONIO FUENTES-ANAYA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:04-CR-862-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Antonio Fuentes-Anaya (Fuentes) pleaded guilty to
illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to 46 months
of imprisonment, two years of supervised release, and a $100
special assessment that was ordered remitted on motion of the
Government.
Fuentes 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40771
-2-
This claim is dismissd for lack of jurisdiction because it is not
ripe for review. See United States v. Riascos-Cuenu, No.
05-20037, ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 2660032 at *1-2 (5th Cir. Oct.
18, 2005).
Fuentes’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 Fuentes 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). Fuentes 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.