the lack of a defense were nothing more than her personal belief in the dynamics of the criminal justice system. While the court stated that Barnes, Arkins and Donovan all had an interest in Spears’ prosecution, that was not enough to constitute a vindictive animus for prosecuting Spears for exercising his legal right to a fair trial in the state’s murder ease against him. Nothing in the record shows that these findings are clearly erroneous. Even if we decide that Barnes, Arkins and Donovan did act with a vindictive animus, it is well settled that the actions of an investigating agency will not be imputed to a federal prosecutor. Dickerson, 975 F.2d at 1251; United States v. Hastings, 126 F.3d 310, 314 (4th Cir.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1388, 140 L.Ed.2d 648 (1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Monsoor, 77 F.3d 1031, 1035
holding patentees are restricted by prosecution history estoppel to the scope of what they ultimately claim holding plaintiff responsible for attorney error holding that unlawful biases of an investigating agency are not imputed to those ultimately responsible for the prosecution recognizing that withholding of exculpatory evidence by police is imputed to the prosecution recognizing a crime lab as part of the prosecution team and that any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the governments behalf is imputed to the prosecution