court properly applied the enhancement based on a detailed analysis of Ibrahim’s perjurious testimony at trial, noting that “the defendant’s lies were so brazen and so abundant” that it was “almost difficult to know where to start.” The application of the two enhancements by the district court without jury findings as to the supporting facts did not violate Apprendi. Because the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory, see United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), application of guidelines enhancements that do not increase the statutory maximum or minimum penalty neither implicates nor violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. See Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 2162-64, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Singletary, 458
holding that under the sixth amendment any fact which increases the penalty for a crime  eg by triggering a mandatory minimum sentence must be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt holding that facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences must be submitted to the jury but emphasizing that ruling does not mean that any fact that influences judicial discretion when imposing a sentence within the range prescribed by statute must be found by a jury holding it permissible to increase a mandatory minimum sentence based solely on facts found by the sentencing judge holding any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an element that must be submitted to the jury holding any fact other than prior conviction that increases statutory mandatory minimum is element of offense that must be submitted to jury and found beyond reasonable doubt