Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): at the behest of the state. Koon, 34 F.3d at 1438. This he cannot do. It is true that the El Dorado County prosecutor in charge of the state criminal action against Price subsequently pursued the federal forfeiture action as a “Special Assistant United States Attorney,” while still on the county payroll. But this fact, without more, is not sufficient to allege a “sham” prosecution. Close coordination between state and federal authorities, including “the employment of agents of one sovereign to help the other sovereign in its prosecution,” does not implicate the Double Jeopardy Clause. United States v. Figueroa-Soto, 938 F.2d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1098, 112 S.Ct. 1181, 117 L.Ed.2d 424 (1992); accord United States v. Paiz, 905 F.2d 1014, 1024 (7th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 924, 111 S.Ct. 1319, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that investigation was insufficient prior to prosecution for forgery of check (B) holding that a  1983 due process claim that essentially contests the fairness of the plaintiffs prosecution  is  similar to his malicious prosecution claim and claims resembling malicious prosecution do not accrue until the prosecution has terminated in the plaintiffs favor  (C) holding that the fact that an indiana prosecutor was later designated a special deputy united states attorney for purposes of the federal prosecution was insufficient to establish a sham prosecution (D) holding that foreign states prosecution did not bar subsequent florida prosecution for same conduct (E) holding that prosecution of defendant in the united states for hostage taking based on acts committed outside the united states did not violate due process
Output (English): holding that prosecution of defendant in the united states for hostage taking based on acts committed outside the united states did not violate due process