state prosecutors would be able to usurp federal prosecutorial discretion. Nor did the state prosecutor in this case have any authority to bind the federal prosecutor. Under settled precedent, one federal prosecutor cannot bind his or her counterpart in another district unless he or she has been given the authority. See United States v.. D’Apice, 664 F.2d 75, 78 (5th Cir. Unit B Dec.1981). If federal prosecutors cannot bind other federal prosecutors with their unauthorized acts, a state prosecutor a fortiori should not be able to do so. Roberson, 872 F.2d at 611. Here, Kozak has not demonstrated that the state actors, Meyer and Moser, with whom her counsel conferred had been granted actual federal authority to negotiate a cooperation agreement. The absence of an agency re Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, because Kozak has failed to
holding that a promise by fbi agents that defendant would serve no time on state charges if he cooperated in the federal investigation was unauthorized holding that an fbi agents investigation of the written contents of a notebook that was lawfully in the possession of the fbi constituted a search that violated the defendants fourth amendment rights holding that defendant was not entitled to specific performance of alleged cooperation agreement entered into with fbi agent who allegedly promised defendant he would not be prosecuted if he cooperated in making a statement where there was no evidence establishing that agent was authorized to make promises to obtain defendants cooperation holding that the speedy trial clock for state charges did not begin to run when the defendant was taken into custody by federal authorities on federal charges but rather when he was indicted for the state charges holding that fbi agents testimony regarding witnesss pri or identification was admissible where nothing in the record suggested that the declarant was unavailable for reexamination after the agents testimony