
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Antonio RAMOS-LUCAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-40576.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Sept. 30, 2005.
    James Lee Turner, Kathlyn Giannaula Snyder, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Jeffrey L. Wilde, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

This court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence of Antonio Ramos-Lucas (“Ramos”). Unites States v. Ramos-Lucas, No. 04-40576 (5th Cir. Jan. 12, 2005) (unpublished). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See de la Cruz-Gonzalez v. United States, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1995, — L.Ed.2d - (2005). We requested and received supplemental letter briefs addressing the impact of Booker.9

Ramos argues that the district court sentenced him under a mandatory application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines now prohibited by Booker. However, he identifies “no evidence in the record suggesting that the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence under an advisory guidelines system.” Unit ed States v. Taylor, 409 F.3d 675, 677 (5th Cir.2005).

Ramos concedes that he cannot make the necessary showing of plain error that is required by our precedent. Furthermore, he correctly acknowledges that this court has rejected the argument that a Booker error is a structural error or that such error is presumed to be prejudicial. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520-22 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517); see also United States v. Malveaux, 411 F.3d 558, 561 n. 9 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed (July 11, 2005) (No. 05-5297). He desires to preserve this argument for further review.

Because nothing in the Supreme Court’s Booker decision requires us to change our prior affirmance in this case, we therefore reinstate our judgment affirming Ramos’s conviction and sentence.

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 doe limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     