Arturo Martinez-Corpus appeals from his guilty-plea conviction of illegally reentering the United States after having been convicted of illegal entry. Martinez contends that the district court violated United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), by sentencing him under the formerly mandatory *427 Sentencing Guidelines regime. According to Martinez, application of the formerly mandatory regime was a structural error that should not require plain-error analysis. Martinez acknowledges that his structural-error and presumed-prejudice contentions are foreclosed, and he concedes that he cannot satisfy the plain-error test applicable to issues raised for the first time on appeal, but he raises the issues to preserve them for further review.

Martinez’s structural-error and presumptive-prejudice contentions are foreclosed. See United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 464, — L.Ed. 2d - (2005) (No. 05-6242). Martinez has failed to demonstrate that his sentence likely would have been different under an advisory sentencing regime. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 522 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. - — ■, 126 S.Ct. 43, — L.Ed.2d --- (2005). The district court imposed the longest sentence indicated by Martinez’s sentencing range, denied Martinez’s request for a downward departure, and indicated a lack of sympathy for Martinez.

AFFIRMED.