Armando Lugo appeals his sentence following a guilty plea to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Lugo challenges a sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice based on the sentencing court’s finding that Lugo testified falsely at a suppression hearing. Disagreeing with Lugo’s contention that he preserved this argument in the district court, we review the claim for plain error and find none. United States v. Holmes, 406 F.3d 337, 362 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 375, 163 L.Ed.2d 163 (2005); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520-21 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005).

Lugo correctly points out that the district court plainly erred in sentencing him under a mandatory guideline system; however, he has failed to show that his sentence would have been “significantly different” if he had been sentenced “under an advisory scheme rather than a mandatory one.” Mares, 402 F.3d at 521. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence. United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 268, 163 L.Ed.2d 241 (2005).

AFFIRMED.