Armando Rodriguez-Santos appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 37-month sentence for illegal reentry. He argues that the district court violated the spirit of *276 United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), when it sentenced him after appearing to disagree with the Guidelines and that the district court mistakenly believed that the Guidelines were mandatory. He also argues that the enhancement provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional in the light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

Rodriguez-Santos did not raise his argument concerning the mandatory application of the Guidelines in the district court. Therefore, his sentence is reviewed for plain error. See 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); see also United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 436 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2958, 165 L.Ed.2d 970 (2006). Even if the district court believed it was bound by the Guidelines, Rodríguez-Santos has not shown he would have received a more lenient sentence otherwise. Therefore, RodríguezSantos has failed to demonstrate plain error. See United States v. Robles-Vertiz, 442 F.3d 350, 353 (5th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed (May 30, 2006) (No. 05-11285).

Rodriguez-Santos’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Rodríguez-Santos contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See 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).

AFFIRMED.