the judgment of the state court that the sentences be served concurrently. The short answer to that contention is that such a determination is not binding on federal authorities.”) (citing Abdul-Malik v. Hawk-Sawyer, 403 F.3d 72, 75 (2d Cir.2005) (“The state sentencing court did specify that the state sentence should run concurrently to the federal sentence. However, such a determination is not binding on federal authorities.”) (emphasis in original) (citing McCarthy v. Doe, 146 F.3d 118, 120-21 (2d Cir.1998)) (“[Although petitioner emphasizes the state court’s designation of its sentence to run concurrently with petitioner’s federal sentence, we note that the state court’s intent is not binding on federal authorities.”) (citing United States v. Sackinger, 704 F.2d 29, 32 (2d Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>)), aff'd No. 09-1848-pr, 377 Fed.Appx. 97 (2d
holding that both the state and the defendant are bound to the terms of a plea agreement under santobello holding federal court is not bound by terms of plea agreement between defendant and state authorities holding federal courts are bound by state court determinations of state law holding that a federal habeas court may grant specific performance of a plea agreement in the face of evidence that the state has breached the terms of such an agreement holding that when a court accepts a fixed plea agreement it is bound by the agreements terms