acted without actual authorization from the United States. Kozak points to the fact that the Erickson investigation was a joint investigation involving local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. Kozak argues that since Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) agents were involved in the investigation, they presumably “gave express actual authority to the Iowa officials to offer Kozak material witness status in return for immunity.” Kozak’s br. at 13. Kozak further contends that the FBI agents involved in the Erickson investigation were authorized to bind, the United States. The flaw in Kozak’s argument is two-fold. First, she has ailed to establish that ATF agents had authority to bind the United States Attorney); United States v. Kettering, 861 F.2d 675, 678 (11th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Hudson, 609 F.2d 1326, 1329
holding that plea agreement with drug enforcement agency agent not enforceable when agent was not authorized by united states attorney to enter agreement holding that the employer was not the insurers agent holding that a waiver of right to appeal contained in a plea agreement is enforceable holding an agent from the drug enforcement agency could testify regarding the street value of cocaine where the agent was testifying regarding matters within his personal knowledge and experience as a narcotics officer holding that nonexclusive distributor was not agent of manufacturer where distributorship agreement expressly stated distributor is not an agent