United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-3272 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 17-cr-20024 — James E. Shadid, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED DECEMBER 1, 2021 — DECIDED AUGUST 8, 2022 ____________________

Before MANION, BRENNAN, and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judges. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. While on federal supervised release, John Johnson agreed to cooperate with local police. Federal prosecutors did not object, and his cooperation was allowed by a federal judge. Later, federal drug charges were brought against Johnson, which he argued should be dis- missed under the cooperation agreement. But there was no federal non-prosecution agreement, and an agency theory did 2 No. 20-3272 not bind federal authorities under the cooperation agreement. The Government also did not suppress favorable evidence material to Johnson’s defense. So, we affirm. I John Johnson was convicted of a series of state drug charges and received a lengthy sentence. He later pleaded guilty to a federal offense for distributing cocaine, which re- sulted in a 60-month prison sentence. In 2011, he was released from federal custody under supervised release. But on two separate occasions in 2014, Johnson sold cocaine to a Drug En- forcement Administration confidential informant. At that time, he was not prosecuted for either drug offense. The Proposed Cooperation Agreement. Sixteen months later, Jonathan Jones and David Dailey, two Decatur, Illinois Police Department officers, approached Johnson on the street. The officers told Johnson they knew about his 2014 drug transac- tions and showed him incriminating evidence. They pro- posed that Johnson covertly assist local law enforcement in providing information about illegal drug activity and various crimes. Johnson agreed to cooperate in exchange for leniency, although he and the officers understood that the proposed agreement would need to be approved by the federal govern- ment in accord with a condition of Johnson’s federal super- vised release. The proposed agreement was not reduced to writing, and the parties now dispute its terms. According to Johnson, he reasonably believed that the officers promised him immunity from all prosecution for the 2014 drug transactions, including federal immunity. The Government denies that anyone ever promised Johnson immunity from federal prosecution. No. 20-3272 3

After Johnson agreed to cooperate, Decatur officers con- tacted his federal probation officer, Gwen Powell, to request federal permission for Johnson to cooperate. According to a violation memorandum Powell later prepared for a revoca- tion proceeding, the officers “requested permission for [John- son] to cooperate with them and in exchange, no charges would be filed against the offender.” Before seeking permission from the district court, Powell informed Assistant United States Attorneys Jason Bohm and Eugene Miller of the proposed cooperation agreement and re- quested their position. Powell emailed Bohm that “Johnson wants to cooperate and work with Decatur PD,” to which Bohm replied that he had “no objection.” Bohm also for- warded Powell’s email request to Miller, who replied he “ha[d] no objection to John Johnson’s request to cooperate with the Decatur Police Department.” After receiving approval from Bohm and Miller, Powell emailed Judge Harold A. Baker of the United States District Court for the Central District of Il