
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Leonel VARGAS-ALARCON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-40420.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided June 20, 2006.
    Paula Camille Offenhauser, James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Tony Ray Roberts, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Sarny K. Khalil, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for D efendant-App ellant.
    Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Luis Leonel Vargas-Alarcon pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to being an alien unlawfully found in the United States after deportation and was sentenced to 57 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. As a condition of supervised release, Vargas-Alarcon was ordered to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as directed by his probation officer.

Vargas-Alarcon argues that the district court erred in ordering him to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a condition of supervised release. 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, 1101-02 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 9, 2006) (No. 05-8662).

Vargas-Alareon’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 VargasAlarcon 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). Vargas-Alarcon 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     