Id. at 586; see also Moreno, 421 F.3d at 1219-20. Poindexter attempts to distinguish Rivera by contending that Amendment 591 applies to offense levels within the career offender guideline because this guideline is the only one that uses the term “offense of conviction” to determine not only the applicable guideline, but also the offense level within the guideline. Poindexter is correct that Rivera does not squarely answer the question presented by his appeal— whether “Amendment 591 requires [a] sen tence pursuant to the career offender provision of the Guidelines to be modified because [the] offense of conviction directly relates to [the] statutory maximum used to calculate [the] offense level.” United States v. Bowens, 164 Fed.Appx. 797, 800 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). Nonetheless, we are persuaded by the
holding that party that failed to object to instruction that jury not answer a question based on its answer to the prior question waived that partys right to have the jury make findings as to the subsequent question holding appellant could not obtain a new trial so that jury could answer liability question because the charge instructed the jury not to answer the question based on its answer to a prior question and because appellant did not object to this instruction recognizing that moreno which addressed substantially the same question as rivera in the eleventh circuit did not answer this question holding appellant could not complain of jurys failure to answer question because the charge instructed the jury not to do so based on its answer to a prior question and because appellant did not object to this instruction recognizing the open question