Parmeno Bernal-Flores appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation. For the first time on appeal, Bernal-Flores argues 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). Bernal-Flores concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). See United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).

Also for the first time on appeal, Bernal-Flores argues that the district court erred in sentencing him under a mandatory sentencing guidelines scheme. See United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Bernal-Flores acknowledges that this argument is reviewed for plain error, but argues that he does not have to show that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights because the error is structural and because prejudice should be presumed.

Plain error is the correct standard of review. See United States v. Malveaux, 411 F.3d 558, 560 n. 9 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (July 11, 2005) (No. 05-5297). The district court committed error that is plain when it sentenced BernalFlores under a mandatory sentencing guidelines regime. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556); United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir. 2005). Bernal-Flores fails to meet his burden of showing that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights. See Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d at 733-34; United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 521 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517); see also United States v. Bringier, 405 F.3d 310, 317 n. 4 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (July 26, 2005)(No. 05-5535).

AFFIRMED.