With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (quoting Thomas v. I.N.S., 35 F.3d at 1332, 1338 (9th Cir.1994)). The record in this case is devoid of any evidence establishing that the FBI agents assigned to the Erickson investigation were authorized to make promises in order to induce Kozak’s cooperation. Indeed, Special Agents Curran and Birnie testified that FBI special agents do not negotiate cooperation agreements on behalf of the United States. Rather, such duty falls on prosecutors in the United States Attorney’s office. , As a result, there is no delegation of federal authority in the record. It must be noted that courts have held that FBI and other federal law enforcement agents do not have authority to offer cooperation or plea agreements to defendants. See United States v. Streebing, 987 F.2d 368, 372 (6th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 961, 118 S.Ct. 2983,

A: 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
B: holding that plea agreement with drug enforcement agency agent not enforceable when agent was not authorized by united states attorney to enter agreement
C: holding that where the plea agreement required the government to inform the sentencing court of all defendants cooperation the issue  is not whether the prosecutor enthusiastically disclosed his cooperation but whether the prosecutor disclosed all cooperation
D: holding that cooperation agreement defendant entered into with the government did not include defendants testifying at trial where there was no meeting of the minds as to that point
A.