United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                    ___________

                                    No. 05-1350
                                    ___________

United States of America,                *
                                         *
              Appellee,                  *
                                         * Appeal from the United States
         v.                              * District Court for the
                                         * Southern District of Iowa.
Juan Jose Vaca-Arceo,                    *
                                         *     [UNPUBLISHED]
              Appellant.                 *
                                    ___________

                              Submitted: January 27, 2006
                                 Filed: February 8, 2006
                                  ___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
                            ___________

PER CURIAM.

      Juan Jose Vaca-Arceo (Vaca-Arceo) appeals the 50-month sentence the district
     1
court imposed upon his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of
8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). For reversal, Vaca-Arceo argues the district court erred by
sentencing him under mandatory Sentencing Guidelines in violation of United States
v. Booker, 

(2005).




         1
        The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Iowa.
       Vaca-Arceo’s failure to object below to the district court’s mandatory
application of the Guidelines limits this court to a plain-error review. See United
States v. Pirani, 

, 550 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 

(2005). While the district court plainly erred in sentencing Vaca-Arceo under a
mandatory application of the Guidelines, the error was not prejudicial because Vaca-
Arceo was sentenced toward the middle of the calculated Guidelines range and
nothing in the record suggests Vaca-Arceo would have received a more lenient
sentence under an advisory Guidelines scheme. See United States v. Norman, 

, 539-40 (8th Cir. 2005) (finding no prejudice where defendant was sentenced
in middle of the Guidelines range and there was no other indication in the record that
he would have received a more lenient sentence under an advisory Guidelines
scheme); 

, 552-53 (plain-error test).

      Accordingly, we affirm.
                     ______________________________




                                         -2-