Jose Jorge Gonzalez-Acosta appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). Gonzalez-Acosta argues that, in light of United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the district *496 court plainly erred in sentencing him under a mandatory guidelines system.

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) (No. 05-5556); 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 (July 11, 2005) (No. 05-5297). After Booker, it is clear that application of the federal sentencing guidelines in their mandatory form constitutes error that is plain. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d at 733-34. However, nothing in the record indicates that the plain error affected Gonzalez-Acosta’s substantial rights. See id.

Gonzalez-Acosta argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Gonzalez-Acosta acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but he wishes to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). Thus, we must follow Almendarez-Torres unless the Supreme Court overrules it. Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984.

AFFIRMED.