United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 04-3733
                                   ___________

United States of America,               *
                                        *
             Appellee,                  * Appeal from the United States
                                        * District Court for the Western
             v.                         * District of Missouri.
                                        *
Juan Roldan-Castillo,                   *      [UNPUBLISHED]
                                        *
             Appellant.                 *
                                   ___________

                             Submitted: May 10, 2005
                                Filed: June 6, 2005
                                 ___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
                              ___________

PER CURIAM.

       Juan Roldan-Castillo pled guilty to illegal reentry by a deported alien in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2) and (b)(1). Based upon his plea and the
presentence investigation report, the district court1 sentenced Roldan-Castillo to an
eighteen-month prison term. Roldan-Castillo appeals, arguing that the district court
should have submitted to the jury the question whether his prior conviction was an
"aggravated felony." Roldan-Castillo properly preserved this Sixth Amendment
challenge under Blakely v. Washington, 

(2004), at the time of

      1
       The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
sentencing. Because Roldan-Castillo was not entitled to jury findings on the issue of
whether his prior conviction was an aggravated felony, we affirm.

       In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 

, 235 (1998), the Court
held that a prior felony conviction, including the characterization of a particular
felony as an "aggravated felony," is a sentencing factor for the court, rather than a fact
issue for the jury. That principle was reaffirmed in United States v. Booker, 125 S.
Ct. 738, 756 (2005).

       The district court based its enhancement on Roldan-Castillo's prior guilty plea
to possession of a controlled substance. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, cmt. n.3(A) (defining
aggravated felony by reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)). This prior offense was
contained in the presentence investigation report and Roldan-Castillo does not deny
its existence. The United States Code defines aggravated felony to include illicit
trafficking in a controlled substance, including a drug trafficking crime as defined in
18 U.S.C. § 924(c). 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), Roldan-
Castillo's conviction is an aggravated felony if it is punishable under the Controlled
Substances Act, and it is a felony. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2); United States v. Haggerty,

, 406 (8th Cir. 1996). Because the statute defines the term "aggravated
felony" to include Roldan-Castillo's prior conviction, the district court did not make
any factual findings that could give rise to a Sixth Amendment claim.

       Though there was no Sixth Amendment violation, the district court committed
Booker error by treating the guidelines as mandatory. As Roldan-Castillo preserved
the issue with a Blakely objection to the district court, we must also consider whether
it was “harmless error to sentence [him] under a mandatory guidelines regime, as
opposed to the Booker advisory system.” United States v. Haidley, 

, 644
(8th Cir. 2005). We conclude the error was harmless. At sentencing, both defense
counsel and counsel for the government urged the district court to impose a sentence
at the bottom of the appropriate guidelines range of fifteen to twenty one months.

                                           -2-
The court instead imposed a sentence in the middle of the range, eighteen months,
explaining, “I don’t believe a sentence at the low end . . . is in the best interest of
justice.” This removes any “grave doubt” that the Booker error “substantially
influenced the outcome of the proceedings.” 

.

      The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
                     ______________________________




                                         -3-