Emanuel Wilson appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. He argues (1) for the first time on appeal and pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, —U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), that his sentence is illegal and (2) pursuant to Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), that the district court’s reliance on his co-defendant’s out-of-court statement to ascertain drug quantity violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause.

*741 Wilson has not established plain error with regard to his Blakely claim because he has not established that his sentence, imposed under the mandatory guidelines scheme, affected his substantial rights. The record does not indicate that the district court “would have reached a significantly different result” under a sentencing scheme in which the guidelines were advisory only. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520-521 (5th Cir. 2005).

Wilson’s argument pursuant to Crawford that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated at sentencing is foreclosed by United States v. Navarro, 169 F.3d 228, 236 (5th Cir. 1999), which held that “there is no Confrontation Clause right at sentencing.”

AFFIRMED.