Juan Carlos Herrera-Sanchez (Herrera) appeals the 60-month sentence he received after pleading guilty to one count, of illegal reentry into the United States after having been deported. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Herrera contends that his sentence should have been limited to two years because his indictment failed to allege a prior felony conviction used to increase his sentence. As he concedes, this contention is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998).

Herrera also contends that he is entitled to resentencing because the district court sentenced him under a mandatory application of the guidelines prohibited by United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, -, -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756-57, 769, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Herrera did not raise this issue in the district court, so we review it for plain error. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Malveaux, 411 F.3d 558 (5th Cir. 2005). Although there was an error under Booker, Herrera fails to “demonstrate a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome ... that the district judge would have imposed a different sentence” under advisory guidelines. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d at 733 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Herrera therefore fails to show that the error affected his substantial rights as is necessary under the plain-error standard. See id.; United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 521-22 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.