discussed Cited "see" United States v. Harder See United States v. Esquenazi, 752 F.3d 912, 925 (11th Cir.) (in case of first impression, noting that whether an entity constitutes an “instrumentality” is a “fact-bound question[ ]” and providing relevant factors to the jury’s inquiry), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 293 , 190 L.Ed.2d 141 (2014); United States v. Duperval, 777 F.3d 1324, 1333 (11th Cir.2015) (“fact-finder should consider the factors” enumerated in Esquenazi to determine whether entity constitutes instrumentality), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 136 S.Ct. 859 , 193 L.Ed.2d 757 (2016).

discussed Cited "see" United States v. Daniel Rodriguez See United States v. Esquenazi, 752 F.3d 912 , 929 n. 11 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 293 , 190 L.Ed.2d 141 (2014) (explaining that a party cannot broadly adopt an issue that is individualized to another defendant).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hochendoner v. Genzyme Corporation See, e.g., Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles,, 751 F.3d 1096, 1109 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 295 , 190 L.Ed.2d 141 (2014); Katz, 672 F.3d at 72 ; Carver v. City of New York, 621 F.3d 221, 225-26 (2d Cir.2010); Muir v. Navy Fed.