
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse REYES, also known as MDKDeath, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-40737.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Feb. 27, 2006.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H Michael Sokolow, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jesse Reyes pleaded guilty to one charge of distribution of child pornography and was sentenced to serve 121 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. Reyes now challenges two conditions of supervised release imposed by the district court. Reyes first argues 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 be vacated. We dismiss this claim for lack of jurisdiction because it is not ripe for review. See United States v. Riascos-Cuenu, 428 F.3d 1100, 1101-02 (5th Cir.2005).

Reyes also contends that the district court erred in imposing a condition of supervised release that forbids him from accessing the Internet, save for employment purposes that are approved by his probation officer. This argument is reviewed for plain error only due to Reyes’s failure to raise an appropriate objection in the district court. See United States v. Phipps, 319 F.3d 177, 192 (5th Cir.2003). Reyes relies primarily on law from other circuits, and his attempt to distinguish a substantially similar Fifth Circuit case is unpersuasive. See United States v. Paul, 274 F.3d 155, 169-70 (5th Cir.2001) (upholding a total prohibition on computer or Internet usage as a condition of the defendant’s supervised release). Consequently, he has failed to demonstrate any clear or obvious error on the district court’s part. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732-33 (5th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 267, 163 L.Ed.2d 240 (2005). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     