Jose Cortez-Villanueva (“Cortez”) appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. We pretermit discussion of the validity of his appeal waiver because, for the reasons discussed below, Cortez is not entitled to relief.

Cortez argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Cortez’s argument concerning the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is, as he concedes, foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998); United States v. Izaguirre-Flores, 405 F.3d 270, 277-78 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, — S.Ct. -, — L.Ed.2d -, 2005 WL 1786638 (July 22, 2005) (No. 05-5469).

Cortez also argues for the first time in a supplemental brief that the district court erred by sentencing him under the mandatory Guideline regime held unconstitutional in United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We review this argument for plain error. See United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir. 2005). Our review of the record does not reveal that the district court’s error affected the outcome of the sentencing proceedings. See id. at 600-01. Therefore, Cortez has failed to establish that the error affected his substantial rights and he consequently cannot meet the plain error standard of review. Id.

AFFIRMED.