Juan Jose Vaca-Arceo (Vaca-Arceo) appeals the 50-month sentence the district court 1 imposed upon his guilty plea to *454 illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). For reversal, Vaca-Arceo argues the district court erred by sentencing him under mandatory Sentencing Guidelines in violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

Vaea-Areeo’s failure to object below to the district court’s mandatory application of the Guidelines limits this court to a plain-error review. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 266, 163 L.Ed.2d 239 (2005). While the district court plainly erred in sentencing Vaca-Arceo under a mandatory application of the Guidelines, the error was not prejudicial because Vaca-Arceo was sentenced toward the middle of the calculated Guidelines range and nothing in the record suggests Vaca-Arceo would have received a more lenient sentence under an advisory Guidelines scheme. See United States v. Norman, 427 F.3d 537, 539-40 (8th Cir. 2005) (finding no prejudice where defendant was sentenced in middle of the Guidelines range and there was no other indication in the record that he would have received a more lenient sentence under an advisory Guidelines scheme); Pirani, 406 F.3d at 550, 552-53 (plain-error test).

Accordingly, we affirm.