Jose Robert Galicia-Pena (“Galicia”) appeals following his conviction in a bench trial for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Galicia argues that the district court committed reversible plain error by increasing the maximum authorized Guidelines sentence based on facts neither admitted nor found by a jury, and by imposing a sentence under á mandatory Guidelines scheme. Galicia correctly concedes that he cannot carry his burden of showing that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 733-34 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 521 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517).

Galicia also argues that because his indictment did not allege a prior felony conviction, he was subject to a maximum sentence of two years under U.S.C. § 1326(a). He correctly acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.