Jose Saloman Arreola-Amaya (Arreola) appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry of a previously deported alien subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. Arreola argues, citing United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), that the district court erred in sentencing him because the court believed that the federal sentencing guidelines were mandatory, rather than advisory. He also contends that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional and that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), should be overruled.

We review for plain error. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520-21 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 43, — L.Ed.2d-(2005). With respect to the district court’s mandatory application of the sentencing guidelines, Arreola concedes that he cannot demonstrate that the district court would have imposed a different sentence had it considered the guidelines to be advisory. Accordingly, he has not established plain error in his sentence. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 522.

Although the decision in AlmendarezTorres has been called into question, see Shepard v. United States, — U.S. -, -, 125 S.Ct. 1254,1264,161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005) (Thomas, J., concurring), the Supreme Court has not overruled it. Accordingly, Arreola’s argument that Almendarez-Torres should be overruled and that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) be declared unconstitutional is foreclosed. See United States v. Rivera, 265 F.3d 310, 312 (5th Cir. 2001).

AFFIRMED.