Juan Manuel Alejo-Agramon (Alejo-Agramon) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

For the first time on appeal, Alejo-Agramon contends that the district court plainly erred by characterizing his state felony conviction for simple possession of marijuana as an “aggravated felony” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C) and 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), when that same offense was punishable only as a misdemeanor under federal law. This issue, however, is foreclosed by United States v. Caicedo-Cuero, 312 F.3d 697, 706-11 (5th Cir. 2002), and United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 1997).

Alejo-Agramon also contends, for the first time on appeal, 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). As he concedes, this argument is foreclosed. 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).

Finally, Alejo-Agramon contends that the district court committed reversible plain error when it sentenced him pursuant to the mandatory United States Sentencing Guidelines system held unconstitutional in United States v. Booker,U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). He argues that the error was plain, structural, and presumptively preju *588 dicial. We review for plain error. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (July 25, 2005)(No. 05-5556).

The district court erred when it sentenced Alejo-Agramon pursuant to the mandatory Guidelines system. See id. at 733. However, the error was not structural or presumptively prejudicial. See United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Malveaux, 411 F.3d 558, 560 n. 9 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (July 11, 2005) (No. 05-5297). Further, Alejo-Agramon has failed to point to anything in the record indicating that the district court would have reached a different conclusion had it known that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 521-22 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). Although the district court sentenced Alejo-Agramon at the lowest end of the guideline range, it found no reason to depart from that range. See United States v. Bringier, 405 F.3d 310, 317 & n. 4 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (July 26, 2005) (No. 05-5535). Therefore, Alejo-Agramon has not demonstrated that his substantial rights were affected, and he has failed to establish plain error. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 522.

AFFIRMED.