In this consolidated appeal, Manuel Reyes-Rodriguez appeals only from his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation (No. 04-40572); Reyes-Rodriguez voluntarily abandons any challenge with respect to the revocation of his supervised release relating to his prior illegal reentry conviction (No. 04-40570).

For the first time on appeal, Reyes-Rodriguez contends that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Reyes-Rodriguez acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed, but he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998); United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).

He also argues that, in light of United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the district court plainly erred in sentencing him under a mandatory guidelines system. After Booker, it is clear that application of the federal sentencing guidelines in their mandatory form constitutes error that is plain. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732-33 (5th Cir. 2005). Reyes-Rodriguez’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, 559-60 n. 9 (5th Cir. 2005). Reyes-Rodriguez must show that the error affected his substantial rights, and he has not done so. See Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d at 733-34. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.