evidence that the defendant committed similar acts in the past that were not charged in the Indictment.” But DeFoggi himself requested an instruction that included the language he now objects to, and his objection is therefore waived. See United States v. Davis, 826 F.3d 1078, 1082 (8th Cir.2016) (“When a party expressly agrees to an instruction, the doctrine of invited error applies,-and any objection to the instruction is waived.” (citations omitted)). Even if this issue were properly before us, De-Foggi fails to offer any argument as to why the objected-to language is erroneous. See United States v. Byrd, 542 F.2d 1026, 1029 (8th Cir. 1976) (citing United States v. Phillips, 522 F.2d 388, 391 (8th Cir. 1975)); see also Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 634 (8th Cir. 2007) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Cruz-Zuniga, 571 F.3d 721,
holding that issues not specifically raised and argued in a partys opening brief are waived holding points not meaningfully argued in opening brief are waived holding that issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a partys opening brief are waived holding issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a partys opening brief are waived holding issues that are not specifically raised and argued in a partys opening brief are waived