Alfredo Covarrubias appeals his sentence for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) by illegally reentering the United States, without permission, following his deportation. Covarrubias contends for the first time on appeal that he should not have been assessed a criminal history point for a prior conviction for shoplifting because that crime is similar to the crime of writing an insufficient-funds check, which is exempt from inclusion in the criminal history calculation. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(l). Covarrubias fails to provide any binding authority holding that the two offenses are similar, and he thus fails to show that the district court made any “clear” or “obvious” error. See United States v. Hull, 160 F.3d 265, 271-272 (5th Cir. 1998).

Covarrubias also has filed a letter pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 28(j) calling our attention to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Blakely v. Washington, - U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). However, we have held that Blakely does not apply to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 473 (5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263).

AFFIRMED.