
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodolfo AMADOR-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-21009
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 13, 2007.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, Mark Michael Dowd, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Brownsville, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Raquel Kathy Wilson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for D efendant-Appellant.
    Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Rodolfo Amador-Flores (Amador) appeals his guilty-plea conviction of, and sentence for, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by being found in the United States without permission after deportation. He argues, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that the 57-month term of imprisonment imposed in his ease exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the § 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment. He challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury.

Amador’s 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 he contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, 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). Amador 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.

Amador also 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. Carmichael, 343 F.3d 756, 761-62 (5th Cir.2003). Accordingly, this portion of the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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.
     