
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cristobal HERNANDEZ-LOSOYA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-41261
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 27, 2006.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Philip T. Cowen, Brownsville, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before JONES, Chief Judge, and KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Cristobal Hernandez-Losoya appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute in excess of 100 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B). He argues that the district court’s determination that it was bound to impose the statutory mandatory minimum sentence was plain error and an incorrect application of the Guidelines in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Because Hernandez-Losoya did not raise this issue in the district court, review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631-32, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002).

Hernandez-Losoya has not shown that Booker rendered the application of the “safety valve” provision or the statutory mandatory minimum sentences in § 841 discretionary. He has not shown that the sentencing judge would have reached a significantly different result under an advisory sentencing scheme. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 521 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). Accordingly, Hernandez-Losoya has not shown that the district court committed error, much less plain error, by sentencing him to the statutory mandatory minimum sentence or by declining to apply the “safety valve” provision when he failed to meet the criteria. See Cotton, 535 U.S. at 631-32, 122 S.Ct. 1781.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     