a valid cooperation agreement for Kozak, no cooperation agreement exists here for the court to enforce. Therefore, the court denies defendant Ko-zak’s motion to dismiss. While this conclusion makes further analysis unnecessary, the court will nevertheless examine the question of whether a cooperation agreement reached with state ac 554 (9th Cir.1995) (“[I]t is well settled that states cannot bind the federal government to the terms of a plea agreement to which the federal government is not a party.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 113, 136 L.Ed.2d 65 (1996); United States v. Allen, 930 F.2d 1270, 1274 (7th Cir.1991) (“In general, the federal government is not bound by a plea agreement entered into in state proceedings.”); United States v. Roberson, 872 F.2d 597, 611 (5th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Long, 852 F.2d 975, 978 (7th
holding that state could not assert sovereign immunity defense where the state had waived immunity in state court and agreed to remove suit to federal court holding that state defendant waived eleventh amendment immunity to a federal claim by removing to federal court holding that state immunity agreement did not bind federal prosecutor holding that the rule 12b6 ruling was not a final judgment and did not bind the district court at summary judgment holding that state did not waive eleventh amendment immunity by removing case to federal court