
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Pedro HIPOLITO-TREVINO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-50710.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided June 22, 2005.
    Ellen A. Lockwood, Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Judy Fulmer Madewell, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Juan Pedro HipoKto-Trevino (Hipólito) appeals the 41-month sentence he received after pleading guilty to one count of illegal reentry into the United States after having been deported. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Hipólito contends that his sentence violated due process and should have been limited to two years because his indictment failed to allege the prior drug-trafficking conviction. As he concedes, this contention is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998).

Hipólito also contends that he is entitled to resentencing because the district court sentenced him under a mandatory application of the guidelines that has been prohibited by United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, -, -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756-57, 769, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Because Hipólito did not raise this issue in the district court, we review for plain error. United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir.2005). Although there was an error under Booker, Hipólito fails to demonstrate that the district court would have imposed a different sentence under advisory guidelines. Id. at 733. He therefore fails to show that the error affected his substantial rights as is necessary under the plain-error standard. See id.; United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 521-22 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517).

The judgment of the district court 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     