Gerónimo Fernando Huezo-Franco appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation.

Huezo argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1826(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). Huezo’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, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998); United States v. Izaguirre-Flores, 405 F.3d 270, 277-78 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 253, - L.Ed.2d - (2005).

Huezo also contends that his sentence is improper under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). He concedes that the plain-error standard of review applies. Huezo has not shown that the district court would have imposed a different sentence under an advisory sentencing scheme. Thus, Huezo has not shown plain error in connection with his sentence. See United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 600-01 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 464, — L.Ed.2d - (2005) (No. 05-6242).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.