recommendation when faced with a § 5K1.1 motion under the Sentencing Guidelines. Based on these absurd potential results, this Court rejects the reasoning in Singleton. This position is consistent with the conclusion reached by nearly all .district courts to have considered this issue. See, e.g., United States v. White, 27 F.Supp.2d 646, 647 (E.D.N.C.1998) (§ 201(c)(2) is inapplicable to government plea bargains designed to encourage witnesses to testify against other criminal defendants); United States v. Hammer, 25 F.Supp.2d 518, 535 (M.D.Pa.1998) (,Singleton was “an erroneous decision”); United States v. Juncal, 1998 WL 525800, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.20, 1998) (rejecting reasoning of the Tenth Circuit in Singleton); United States v. Gabourel, 9 F.Supp.2d 1246, 1247 (D.Col. Aug.17, 1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Guillaume, 13 F.Supp.2d
holding that the governments failure to produce original 302s did not violate the confrontation clause holding that the auuw statute did not violate the defendants second amendment rights holding that to violate a specific intent statute the defendant must act with the purpose of violating the law holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute holding that the agreements made with the governments witnesses did not violate the antigratuity statute