United States v. Reyes

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 27, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-40737
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JESSE REYES, also known as MDKDeath,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:04-CR-149-ALL
--------------------
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jesse Reyes pleaded guilty to one charge of distribution of
child pornography and was sentenced to serve 121 months in prison
and a three-year term of supervised release. Reyes now
challenges two conditions of supervised release imposed by the
district court. Reyes first argues 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
be vacated. We dismiss this claim for lack of jurisdiction

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-40737
-2-
because it is not ripe for review. See United States v.
Riascos-Cuenu, 428 F.3d 1100, 1101-02 (5th Cir. 2005).
Reyes also contends that the district court erred in
imposing a condition of supervised release that forbids him from
accessing the Internet, save for employment purposes that are
approved by his probation officer. This argument is reviewed for
plain error only due to Reyes’s failure to raise an appropriate
objection in the district court. See United States v. Phipps,
319 F.3d 177, 192 (5th Cir. 2003). Reyes relies primarily on law
from other circuits, and his attempt to distinguish a
substantially similar Fifth Circuit case is unpersuasive. See
United States v. Paul, 274 F.3d 155, 169-70 (5th Cir. 2001)
(upholding a total prohibition on computer or Internet usage as a
condition of the defendant’s supervised release). Consequently,
he has failed to demonstrate any clear or obvious error on the
district court’s part. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo,
407 F.3d 728, 732-33 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.
267 (2005). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION.

-- 2 of 2 --