Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Gilberto Garcia-Lozano raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a *7penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense; by United States v. Garcia-Mendez, 420 F.3d 464 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1398, 164 L.Ed.2d 100 (2006), which held that a Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation was equivalent to burglary of a dwelling; and by United States v. Carmichael, 343 F.3d 756, 761-62 (5th Cir. 2003), which held that a challenge to the district court’s order requiring the defendant to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a condition of supervised release is not ripe for review on direct appeal. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.