
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Jose KINTANA-CAMACHO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-40535.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Feb. 23, 2006.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Molly E. Odom, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Juan Jose Kintana-Camacho (Kintana) pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to 77 months of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release.

Kintana 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. This 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). Kintana concedes that Riascos-Cuenu forecloses his argument, but he raises it to preserve it for further review.

Kintana also challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 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 Kintana 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 AlmendarezTorres 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). Kintana 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     