Issac Navarro-Lerma appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction of one charge of transporting an alien for financial gain. Navarro-Lerma argues for the first time on appeal that the district court erred by sentencing him under a mandatory sentencing guidelines scheme. See United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). He further contends that this issue is subject to de novo review and that prejudice should be presumed because the error is structural.

We review for plain error. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied — U.S. -, — S.Ct. -, — L.Ed.2d -, 2005 WL 1811485 (2005). NavarroLerma’s arguments to the contrary are, as he concedes, foreclosed. See id; see also United States v. Malveaux, 411 F.3d 558, 560 n. 9 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied — U.S. -, — S.Ct. -, — L.Ed.2d -, 2005 WL 1670813 (2005); United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 600-01 (5th Cir. 2005). Further, he has not shown that he is entitled to relief under the plain-error standard.

Navarro-Lerma has shown no reversible error in the judgment of the district court.

Consequently, that judgment is AFFIRMED.