
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Josue Virgilio BENEGAS-HERRERA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-40269
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 20, 2006.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendan1>-Appellant.
    Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Josué Virgilio Benegas-Herrera pleaded guilty to being found in the United States unlawfully after deportation and was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. Benegas-Herrera argues that the district court erred by ordering him to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a condition of supervised release. This claim is not ripe for review on direct appeal. 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). The claim is dismissed. See id. at 1102.

Benegas-Herrera’s constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although BenegasHerrera 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, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (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, - U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Benegas-Herrera 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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     