Under Santobello and common principles of contract interpretation, does a promise on behalf of the 'United States' or the 'Government' that is made by a United States Attorney in one district bind federal prosecutors in other districts?

This Court long has recognized that “when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.” Santobello v. New York , 404 U.S. 257 (1971). And, of course, it is well settled that plea agreements and non -prosecution agreements are interpreted using ordinary principles of contract construction, requiring that the plain language of the agreement must govern interpretation and that ambiguities must be resolved against the Government. Nevertheless, Circuits are split on whether promises in a plea agreement in one district on behalf of the “United States” or the “Government” binds the Government in other districts. The question presented here is: Under Santobello and common principles of contract interpretation, does a promise on behalf of the “United States” or the “Government” that is made by a United States Attorney in one district bind federal prosecutors in other districts?