Jose Orlando Serrano (Serrano) appeals his 57-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute marijuana. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846. He argues that the district court’s imposition of a two-level increase in his base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l) for possession of a dangerous weapon violates United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because the facts supporting the adjustment were neither admitted by him nor proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. “An appellate court may not correct an error the defendant failed to raise in the district court unless there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 516, 520 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 43, — L.Ed.2d — (2005). Serrano has not satisfied the third prong of the plain error test because he has not shown that “the sentencing judge — sentencing under an advisory scheme rather than a mandatory *807 one — would have reached a significantly different result.” Id. at 521.

AFFIRMED.