Jesus Roberto Flores-Guzman (Flores-Guzman) appeals his guilty-plea conviction *558 and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

For the first time on appeal, Flores-Guzman contends that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He also contends that Blakely v. Washington, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), applies in determining his sentence. Flores-Guzman acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed, but he seeks to preserve the issues for possible Supreme Court review.

As Flores-Guzman concedes, his arguments are foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998).

Aso for the first time on appeal, Flores-Guzman contends that the district court plainly erred in prohibiting him from “drinking or using any addictive substances” as a special condition of his supervised release. Because the special condition is not reasonably related to the nature of the offense or Flores-Guzman’s characteristics and involves a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary to deter criminal conduct, protect the public, and provide Flores-Guzman with necessary treatment, we agree that the district court plainly erred in prohibiting Flores-Guzman from “drinking or using any addictive substances” during his supervised release. See United States v. Ferguson, 369 F.3d 847, 853-54 (5th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we VACATE the sentence in part and REMAND for the district court to modify the special conditions of Flores-Guzman’s supervised release in a manner consistent with this opinion.

AFFIRMED IN PART. VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.