UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador LARA-HERNANEZ, also known as Martin Uribe-Cnchola, Defendant-Appellant, 141 F. App'x 331

PER CURIAM: Salvador Lara-Hernanez appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction of one charge of illegal reentry into the United States. Lara-Hernanez argues that the district court erred in sentencing him under a mandatory sentencing guidelines scheme. He acknowledges that this claim is reviewed for plain error only, but he contends that he can meet this standard. The district court committed error that is plain by sentencing Lara-Hernanez under a mandatory sentencing guidelines regime. See United States v.

Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520-21 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517); United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed (July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556). Nevertheless, Lara-Hernanez has not carried his burden of showing that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights. See Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d at 733-34; Mares, 402 F.3d at 521. Lara-Hernanez’s contention that this error is structural and gives rise to a presumption of prejudice is unavailing. See United States v.

Malveaux, 411 F.3d 558, 560 n. 9 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed (July 11, 2005) (No. 05-5297); see also United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 600-01, (5th Cir.2005). LaraHernanez has not shown that he should receive relief on this claim. Lara-Hernanez’s argument that the sentencing provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(

b) are unconstitutional is, as he concedes, foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 489-490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). Lara-Hernanez has shown no reversible error in the district court’s judgment. Consequently, that judgment is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.