Jose Luis Valdez-Jaimes appeals his sentence foliowing his guilty-plea conviction of one charge of illegal reentry into the United States. Valdez-Jaimes argues that the district court erred in sentencing him under a mandatory sentencing guidelines scheme. He acknowledges that this claim is reviewed for plain error only, but he contends that he does not have to demonstrate any effect on his substantial rights because the error is structural and because prejudice should be presumed.

The district court committed error that is plain by sentencing Valdez-Jaimes under a mandatory sentencing guidelines regime. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520-21 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517); United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir. 2005). Nevertheless, Valdez-Jaimes has not carried his burden of showing that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights. See Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d at 733-34; Mares, 402 F.3d at 521. Valdez-Jaimes’s contention that this error is structural and gives rise to a presumption of prejudice is unavailing. See United States v. Malveaux, 411 F.3d 558, 560 n. 9 (5th Cir. 2005). Valdez-Jaimes has not shown that he should receive relief on this claim.

*751 Valdez-Jaimes’s argument that the sentencing provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional is, as he concedes, foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. at 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (2000); United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).

Valdez-Jaimes has shown no reversible error in the district court’s judgment. Consequently, that judgment is AFFIRMED.