Marshall Wayne Crawford pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of five grams or more of cocaine base with the intent to distribute and was sentenced to serve 150 months in prison. Crawford appeals his sentence.

Crawford first argues that his Due Process and Ex Post Facto rights were violated by the application of an advisory guidelines scheme to his case pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). As he concedes, this argument, which is reviewed for plain error only, is foreclosed. See United States v. Austin, 432 F.3d 598, 599-600 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732-33 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 267, 163 L.Ed.2d 240 (2005).

Crawford also contends that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the use of his prior convictions to calculate his sentence. Like Crawford’s first argument, this claim is reviewed for plain error only and, as he concedes, it is foreclosed. See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.