Eduardo Molina was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to transport unlawful aliens; aiding and abetting the transportation of an unlawful alien (three counts); and transportation of an unlawful alien (two counts). Molina’s 78-month sentence was enhanced for obstruction of justice and for transporting a minor unaccompanied by a parent or grandparent. On appeal, Molina challenges these enhancements on the basis of the Sixth Amendment. Specifically, he contends that the district court violated the Sixth Amendment by imposing the enhancements based upon facts not found by a jury.

A district court’s interpretation or application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo, and its factual findings are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). In United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 244, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the Court extended Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) to the Sentencing Guidelines, holding that, with the exception of prior convictions, facts needed for a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict “must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” In order to remedy the Sixth Amendment problem posed by factfinding under the Guidelines, the Court in Booker rendered the formerly-mandatory Guidelines advisory only. Id. at 245, 125 S.Ct. 738. Under the post-Booker advisory guideline sentencing system, district courts make the factual findings relevant to sentencing, just as they did before Booker. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005).

Molina was sentenced under the post- Booker advisory Guidelines system. The district court did not violate Booker by finding the facts relevant to the enhancements. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 519; see also United States v. Stevens, 487 F.3d 232, 245-46 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Rhine, 583 F.3d 878, 886 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Molina’s Sixth Amendment arguments are unavailing and the district *378 court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Molina’s pro se motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.