7 Maxwell moved for rehearing en banc, which was denied. (App.92). REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION This case is the perfect vehicle for resolving an acknowledged circuit split over the proper application of this Court’s precedent regarding an important issue of federal criminal law. Despite the fact that the term “United States” has a widely accepted meaning in perhaps every other context, when this term is used in a plea agreement, it means something different in New Jersey than it does across the river in New York City. A criminal defendant who, after receiving a promise that he will not be prosecuted again by the United States, pleads guilty to resolve all criminal liability, is not in fact resolving all criminal liability because the United States remains free to prosecute him anew so long as it does so in the Second or Seventh Circuits. This Court should resolve this conflict, ensuring that plea agreements are enforced consistently throughout the United States so that when the United States makes a promise in a plea agreement, it is held to that promise. I. The circuits are split as to whether a promise on behalf of the “United States” or the “Government” by a United States Attorney’s office in one district is binding upon United States Attorney’s offices in other districts. In Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971), this Court held that a prosecutor’s promise in a plea agreement binds other prosecutors, even those who might have been unaware of the promise. 404 U.S. at 262. “Th[e] circumstances will vary, but a constant DOJ-OGR-00000049