Juan Pedro HipoKto-Trevino (Hipólito) appeals the 41-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.

Hipólito contends that his sentence violated due process and should have been limited to two years because his indictment failed to allege the prior drug-trafficking conviction. 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).

Hipólito also contends that he is entitled to resentencing because the district court sentenced him under a mandatory application of the guidelines that has been prohibited by United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, -, -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756-57, 769, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Because Hipólito did not raise this issue in the district court, we review for plain error. United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir. 2005). Although there was an error under Booker, Hipólito fails to demonstrate that the district court would have imposed a different sentence under advisory guidelines. Id. at 733. He 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.