affairs,’ not just their own affairs.” Cedric Kushner, 533 U.S. at 163, 121 S.Ct. 2087 (internal citation omitted; emphasis in original). As our court has previously explained: [b]ecause a corporation can only function through its employees and agents, any act of the corporation can be viewed as an act of such an enterprise, and the enterprise is in reality no more than the defendant itself. Thus, where employees of a corporation associate together to commit a pattern of predicate acts in the course of their employment and on behalf of the corporation, the employees in association with the corporation do not form an enterprise distinct from the corporation. Florida Evergreen Foliage v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., 336 F.Supp.2d 1239, 1261 (S.D.Fla.2004) (internal citations omitted) (<HOLDING>); see also Acosta v. Campbell, No.
recognizing first english requirement was not met where trial counsel represented petitioner on direct appeal holding that counsels motion was not sufficient where counsel alleged only that counsel and appellants positions had become adverse holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel holding that counsel was not deficient in failing to call a witness where the defendant never provided the witnesss name to counsel and no evidence existed that counsel had any notice of the witnesss identity holding that the distinctiveness requirement was not met where alleged enterprise consisted of corporation employees outside counsel and agents and consultants