questions in the special verdict forms should only be considered if the jury found Peters guilty of robbery. After posing the questions, the special interrogatories concluded: In order to answer any of these questions “yes,” the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the answer to the question should be “yes”. If the evidence does not convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the answer should be “yes”, you must answer the question “no.” Peters did not object. The jury found Peters guilty of robbery and answered “yes” to the special interrogatories. Despite failing to object on either issue, Peters moved for a new trial, unsuccessfully, arguing that the sentencing allegations and special verdict questions unfairly prejudiced him. At sentencing, following our decis 95) (<HOLDING>); see Simmons v. Bowersox, 235 F.3d 1124,
holding representation by attorney who met all requirements for obtaining license but failed to take oath for admission not per se ineffective distinguishing circumstance from representation by someone impersonating lawyer holding that an ambiguous mention of an attorney is not a request for counsel holding that plaintiffs request that inquiry be made of the jury about its intent behind the verdict was not a request to poll the jury holding defendants request to call someone about possible representation to be ambiguous holding exclusion was not ambiguous