ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

This court affirmed Santiago Santillana’s guilty plea conviction and sentence for conspiring to transport and harbor illegal aliens. United States v. Santillana, 03-40975, 2004 WL 1950438 (5th Cir. 3 Sept. 2004) (unpublished). The Supreme Court granted Santillana’s petition for writ of certiorari and for leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis (IFP); vacated our previous judgment; and remanded the case for further consideration in the light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. —, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Santillana v. United States, — U.S. —, 125 S.Ct. 1089, 160 L.Ed.2d 1058 (2005). We requested, and received, supplemental briefs addressing the impact of Booker. Having reconsidered our decision pursuant to the Supreme Court’s instructions, we reinstate our judgment affirming the conviction and sentence.

For the first time in his petition for writ of certiorari, Santillana challenged the constitutionality of his sentence, based on the then-recent holding in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). Absent extraordinary circumstances, we will not consider a defendant’s Booker-related claims presented for the first time in a petition for writ of certiorari. United States v. Taylor, 409 F.3d 675, 676, 2005 WL 1155245, at * 1 (5th Cir.17 May 2005).

Santillana has presented no evidence of the requisite extraordinary circumstances. Even if such circumstances were not re *718 quired, any review would be only for plain error because he did not raise his Boo/cerclaims in district court. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. 31 Mar. 2005) (No. 04-9517). Santillana’s claims would fail the third prong of plain-error review because he does not show any error affected his substantial rights; he makes no “showing that the error ... affected the outcome of the district court proceedings”. Id. at 521 (quotation omitted). As Santillana concedes, the district court did not make any statement that could support an inference it would have imposed a lesser sentence if the guidelines has not been mandatory. (Along this line, Santillana contends: the district court committed “structural error” when it sentenced him under a mandatory guidelines system; and prejudice to his substantial rights should therefore be presumed. As he recognizes, however, our court has rejected this contention as inconsistent with Mares. See United States v. Malveaux, 128 Fed.Appx. 362, 2005 WL 827121, at n. 9 (5th Cir.11 April 2005). He raises the Booker-issue only in order to preserve it for possible review by the Supreme Court.) In sum, because he fails plain-error review, Santillana falls far short of showing the requisite extraordinary circumstances.

AFFIRMED