Brandon Darnell Reynolds appeals the 360-month sentence he received after the *411 jury found him guilty of conspiracy to manufacture, distribute or possess with such intent, or dispense 50 grams or more of crack cocaine or 5 kilograms or more of a substance that contained cocaine. Because Reynolds was sentenced after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), Reynolds’s argument that the district court violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights and his Sixth Amendment rights when it sentenced him based on a drug amount found by a preponderance of the evidence and not on the drug amount found by the jury is unavailing. See United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 793, 798 (5th Cir. 2006). Reynolds’s argument that the remedial portion of Booker does not apply to him, because he committed his offense before Booker was decided, is likewise unavailing. See United States v. Austin, 432 F.3d 598, 599 (5th Cir. 2005).

Reynolds’s argument that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court followed the guidelines recommendation for offenses involving crack cocaine does not amount to plain error. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 358 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Fonts, 95 F.3d 372, 374 (5th Cir. 1996).

AFFIRMED.