James Pickrell appeals the 24-month sentence he received following the revocation of his supervised release. He argues that the sentence, in combination with his original 48-month sentence, exceeds the 60-month statutory maximum for his underlying 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) offense. He further urges that the sentence following revocation was based on facts not determined by a jury or admitted by him and thus violates Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. —, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004).

Piekrell’s claim fails. On its face, Blakely has no application to supervised-release proceedings. Id. at 2537-43; see United States v. Marmolejo, 915 F.2d 981, 983 (5th Cir. 1990). The case does not present a sentencing guidelines issue and, even if it did, this court has held that Blakely does not apply to the sentencing guidelines. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 7, Pt. A, 11; United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 465-66 (5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263). Finally, contrary to his assertion, Pickrell’s sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(4), § 3583(b)(2) and (e)(3); United States v. Celestine, 905 F.2d 59, 60-61 (5th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.