
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Manuel HERNANDEZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-40169.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Feb. 23, 2006.
    
      James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Luis Manuel Hernandez-Gonzalez (Hernandez) pleaded guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement to reentry into the United States following deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b).

Hernandez 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 and that this condition should therefore be vacated. Hernandez’s claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it is not ripe for review. See United States v. Riascos-Cuenu, 428 F.3d 1100, 1102 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert, filed (Jan. 9, 2006) (No. 05-8662).

Hernandez also challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b). His constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Hernandez 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). Hernandez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of AlmendarezTorres 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     