United States v. Rodriguez-Campos

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Rodriguez-Campos

169 F. App'x 232

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided February 23, 2006·No. 05-40194·Unpublished·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Ricardo Rodriguez-Campos (Rodriguez) pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He contends 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 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).

Rodriguez contends that 8 UiS.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional and that this court should vacate his sentence and remand his case for resentencing to no more than two years in prison under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). As he concedes, this contention is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998).

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Ricardo Rodriguez-Campos (Rodriguez) pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He contends 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 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).

Rodriguez contends that 8 UiS.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional and that this court should vacate his sentence and remand his case for resentencing to no more than two years in prison under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). As he concedes, this contention is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998).

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

United States v. Rodriguez-Campos, 169 F. App'x 232 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

169 F. App'x 232 (United States v. Rodriguez-Campos) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related