Jose Americo Rodriguez-Puente (Rodriguez) challenges his conviction and the sentence he received after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry. Rodriguez correctly concedes that his argument that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and that he was subject to only a two-ye ar maximum sentence is foreclosed. See Shepard v. United States, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005); Dretke v. Haley, 541 U.S. 386, 124 S.Ct. 1847, 158 L.Ed.2d 659 (2004); United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).

Rodriguez’s argument that the district court’s error in sentencing him under a mandatory Guidelines scheme is structural and presumed to be prejudicial is also foreclosed. See United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir. 2005). Rodriguez fails to show that his sentence is plain error inasmuch as he points to nothing indicating that the district court would have imposed a lighter sentence under an advisory Guidelines scheme. See United States v. Inman, 411 F.3d 591, 596 (5th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.