Francisco Hernandez-Grimaldo appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. Hernandez-Grimaldo argues that the district court erred in sentencing him under a mandatory sentencing guidelines scheme. He acknowledges that this claim is reviewed for plain error only.

*53The district court committed error that is plain by sentencing HernandezGrimaldo under a mandatory sentencing guidelines regime. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520-21 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517); United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556). Nevertheless, Hernandez-Grimaldo has not carried his burden of showing that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights. See Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d at 733-34; Mares, 402 F.3d at 521. Hernandez-Grimaldo’s contention that this error is structural and gives rise to a presumption of prejudice is unavailing. See United States v. Malveaux, 411 F.3d 558, 560 n. 9 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (July 11, 2005) (No. 05-5297); see also United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 600-01 (5th Cir. 2005). Hernandez-Grimaldo has not shown that he should receive relief on this claim.

Hernandez-Grimaldo’s argument that the sentencing provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional is, as he concedes, foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 489-490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000);

Hemandez-Grimaldo has shown no reversible error in the district court’s judgment. Consequently, that judgment is AFFIRMED.