PER CURIAM:
The sole issue in this case is whether the appellant may raise under the plain error doctrine a sentencing error which was not objected to at the time of sentencing.
At sentencing, the district court followed to the letter the procedure mandated by this court in United States v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1097 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 275, 112 L.Ed.2d 230 (1990), and the appellant did not object to the sentence or the sentencing process on the basis of an ex-post facto violation. He seeks to raise that claim on appeal. We hold that the ex-post facto claim has been waived. To hold otherwise would nullify our recent holding in Jones.
Accordingly, the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.