Williams appeals his conviction for theft of, and conspiracy to sell, government property in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 and 371 (1982). We аffirm.
Williams, a Veterans Administration (VA) employee, was arrested fоr stealing a computer from the hospital at which he workеd. Shortly thereafter, George Ber-ris, a VA personnel directоr, promised Williams that if he resigned his employment, a VA attorney would write to the United States Attorney and recommend dismissal of the сharges against him. Williams was informed by his attorney that such a recommendation would not be binding on the United States Attorney’s office.
Althоugh Williams thereafter resigned his employment, the letter sent by the VA attorney did not recommend dismissal of the indictment, but rather suggested avenues of investigation. Upon learning of the contents of the letter, Berris spoke personally to the United States Attorney and recommended dismissal of the charges. The United States Attоrney proceeded with the prosecution.
Williams moved tо dismiss the indictment because the VA had breached its agreement to send a written recommendation to dismiss the charges. The district court denied the motion on the ground that the VA lacked authоrity to bind the United States Attorney. Williams then pleaded guilty conditioned on his right to appeal the denial of his motion.
We review thе district court’s interpretation of a cooperation agreement for clear error, and the remedy granted fоr the breach of such an agreement for abuse of discretion.
See United States v. Carrillo,
In general, a promise made by a government emplоyee other than the United States Attorney to recommend dismissal of an indictment cannot bind the United States Attorney.
United States v. Irwin,
In Rodman, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) promised to recommend that the United States Attorney’s Office not prosecute Rodman, if he would cooperatе with an SEC investigation. Although Rodman provided substantial information, including self-incriminating statements, in reliance on the agreement, the SEC fаiled to make the promised recommendation. The cоurt of appeals held the district court did not abuse its supervisory powers by dismissing the indictment for unfairness.
The court below distinguished
Rodman
on the ground that the SEC is “directly involved in the criminal justice process” while the VA is not. Williams argues thаt this circuit has interpreted
Rodman
to turn on detrimental reliance and fundamental fairness, rather than on the involvement of the promisor in the criminal justice process,
see United States v. Hudson,
Even assuming the VA breachеd the agreement (and in light of Berris’s oral recommendation tо the United States Attorney this is not entirely clear), prosecutiоn despite the breach was not unfair. Williams was not induced by the аgreement to incriminate himself, to furnish information useful to the government in developing the case against him, or to plead guilty, nоr did he suffer any other prejudice that might render his conviction unfair. The *804 only detriment Williams incurred in reliance on Berris’s promise was the loss of his employment with the YA. Dismissal of the indictment is not a proper remedy for this loss.
AFFIRMED.