United States v. Ramos-Mendiola , 168 F. App'x 636 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                         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. 05-40204
    Conference Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    HECTOR RAMOS-MENDIOLA,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 5:04-CR-1287-1
    --------------------
    Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
    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
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40204
    -2-
    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
    (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.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-40204

Citation Numbers: 168 F. App'x 636

Filed Date: 2/23/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014