United States Court of Appeals
                                                                 Fifth Circuit
                                                              F I L E D
                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                February 23, 2006

                                                           Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                   Clerk
                             No. 05-40169
                         Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                     Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LUIS MANUEL HERNANDEZ-GONZALEZ,

                                     Defendant-Appellant.

                        --------------------
            Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. 5:04-CR-1418-ALL
                        --------------------

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


       *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
                           No. 05-40169
                                -2-

claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it is not

ripe for review.   See United States v. Riascos-Cuenu, 

, 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, 

, 235 (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, 

(2000), we have repeatedly rejected such

arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding.

See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 

, 276 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 

(2005).   Hernandez 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.