Gustavo Guevara-Betancourt appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being found in the United States, without permission, following removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b). Guevara-Betancourt argues that the sentencing provisions in § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. Guevara-Betancourt’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 Guevara-Betancourt 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). Guevara-Betancourt 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.

Guevara-Betancourt also argues that the district court erred by requiring, as a condition of supervised release, that he cooperate in the collection of his DNA as directed by his probation officer. Guevara-Betancourt’s complaint is not ripe for review, and we dismiss this part of the appeal. See United States v. Riascos-Cuenu, 428 F.3d 1100, 1102 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert, filed (Jan. 9, 2006) (No. 05-8662).

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.