United States v. Ramirez-Trujillo , 169 F. App'x 212 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
F I L E D
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 23, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-40416
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ARMANDO RAMIREZ-TRUJILLO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:04-CR-1906-ALL
--------------------
Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Armando Ramirez-Trujillo (Ramirez) pleaded guilty
to illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to 71
months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a
$100 special assessment.
Ramirez 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.
This claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it is
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40416
-2-
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).
Ramirez’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 Ramirez 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). Ramirez 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.