negotiated by state prosecutors to which the federal government is not a party, nor subjective expectations of the parties regarding future federal action prevent federal agencies from independently enforcing compliance with federal law.”); Johnson v. Lumpkin, 769 F.2d 630, 634 (9th Cir.1985) (“State agents are without authority to bind federal proceedings ...”); United States v. McIntosh, 612 F.2d 835, 837 (4th Cir.1979) (“A bare representation by an unauthorized party cannot bind federal prosecutors to forego prosecution.”); United States v. Barker, 542 F.2d 479, 482 (8th Cir.1976) (“The United States as a sovereign is not precluded from enforcing its laws by the grant of immunity of another sovereign, in this case the state.”); United States v. Long, 511 F.2d 878, 881-82 (7th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 895, 96 S.Ct. 196, 46
holding that a judgment in a criminal prosecution for dwi did not bar a subsequent civil proceeding founded on the same facts holding that the district court  did not abuse its discretion in denying his petition for reinstatement where membership in good standing in the state bar was required before attorney could be admitted to the federal bar and applicant had not been readmitted to state bar holding that states nonproseeution agreement did not bar subsequent federal prosecution holding that the parol evidence rule did not bar introduction of evidence of a subsequent oral contract concerning the brokers right to a commission and modifying the written agreement holding that foreign states prosecution did not bar subsequent florida prosecution for same conduct