Bobby Stinnett appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine. He argues that his sentence violates Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), because it was based upon facts that were not admitted by him incident to his guilty plea. After Stinnett filed his appellate brief, the Supreme Court issued United States v. Booker, — U.S. —, —, 125 S.Ct. 738, 755, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), holding that Blakely was applicable to the federal sentencing guidelines. Because Stinnett did not raise this issue below, it is reviewed for plain error only. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 513 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). Although Stinnett has satisfied the first two prongs of the plain-error analysis, he has failed to meet the third prong. Id. at 520-22. Accordingly, he does not warrant relief based on Booker.

Stinnett also argues that the use of hearsay evidence at sentencing violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause. “[Tjhere is no Confrontation Clause right at sentencing.” United States v. Navarro, *731 169 F.3d 228, 236 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.