Alan Anaya-Martinez (Anaya) appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He challenges his sentence on three bases. First, he argues that his prior burglary-of-a-habitation conviction is not a “crime of violence” supporting the 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). This argument is foreclosed. United States v. Garcia-Mendez, 420 F.3d 454, 456-57 (5th Cir. 2005). Second, he argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. This argument is also foreclosed. United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005).

Finally, Anaya argues that the district court’s imposition of his sentence pursuant to the then-mandatory guidelines was not harmless error. This argument has merit. The Government has not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the error in imposing a sentence pursuant to the then-mandatory guidelines was harmless. United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 463 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Anaya’s sentence is VACATED and this case is REMANDED for resentencing.

SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.