12 District of Florida, and not in the Southern District of New York. United States v. Maxwell, 118 F.4th 256, 261 (2d Cir. 2024). The Maxwell court found that it must “affirmatively appear[] that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction” in order for the “United States” to mean the country as a whole, even if entered into in a district in which the term “United States” does, in fact, mean the country as a whole. Id. at 263. Seventh Circuit. Although the Seventh Circuit has not considered the question presented in the specific context of the enforceability of a promise made in a plea agreement against a different U.S. Attorney’s office, it has held in a related context that “[a] prosecutor’s agreement will not bind more than the office of the United States Attorney unless the promise explicitly contemplates ‘a broader restriction.” Thompson v. United States, 431 F. App’x 491, 493 (7th Cir. 2011) (finding that a promise on behalf of the government by a prosecutor would not bind the INS). See also United States v. McDowell, No. 94-CR-787-1, 2006 WL 1896074 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (finding in the context of Rule 35(b) motions that “a United States Attorney has sole authority to bind his own office” only and lacks authority to compel a U.S. Attorney in another district to file a Rule 35(b) motion). II. The Second Circuit’s decision below is wrong and violates the principles set forth in this Court’s prior opinions. The opinion below, which is based on the Second Circuit’s prior holding in Annabi, is wrongly decided and should not stand. Rather than the Second Circuit’s default rule that a promise made on behalf of the United States does not bind the United States as a whole, the default rule should be that a promise DOJ-OGR-00000054