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. 05-40535
                        Conference Calendar


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN JOSE KINTANA-CAMACHO,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                        --------------------
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. 5:04-CR-1644-ALL
                        --------------------

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, 

, 1102

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40535
                                 -2-

(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, 

, 235 (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, 

(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).   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.