United States v. Bishop

── United States v. Bishop ── Case No.: 25-2157 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 23, 2026 Category: General 25-2157-cr United States v. Bishop UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 23rd day of March, two thousand twenty-six. Present: DENNIS JACOBS, RICHARD C. WESLEY, EUNICE C. LEE, Circuit Judges, __________________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. No. 25-2157-cr RONALD BISHOP, Defendant-Appellant. __________________________________________ For Appellee: MEREDITH A. ARFA, Amy Busa, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Joseph Nocella, Jr., United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY. For Defendant-Appellant: JOSEPH W. RYAN, JR., Huntington, NY. 1  Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Azrack, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Defendant-Appellant Ronald Bishop appeals from a July 31, 2025 order denying his motion for a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). On appeal, Bishop argues that (1) the district court committed plain error by allowing his federal sentence to run consecutively, rather than concurrently, to his then-undischarged state sentence, and (2) the district court erred by denying his motion for sentence reduction. BACKGROUND In July 2014, Bishop was arrested and charged in Nassau County with several felonies related to possession and sale of crack cocaine (the “State Case”). While on pretrial release, Bishop was arrested again in January 2016 on charges that later formed the basis of a federal case: possession of crack cocaine with the intent to distribute; and unlawful possession of ten illegal firearms, numerous boxes and bags containing various types of ammunition, and several high- capacity ammunition feeding devices (the “Federal Case”). Before the Federal Case had progressed to indictment, Bishop was convicted of the charges in the State Case in July 2016. In September 2016, a grand jury in the Eastern District of New York returned an indictment charging Bishop in the Federal Case with (1) conspiracy to distribute substances containing cocaine base (28 grams or more) and heroin, in or about and between January 2014 and July 2016, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) and 841(b)(1)(C) (Count One); (2) possession with intent 2 to distribute a substance containing cocaine, on or about January 21, 2016, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C) (Coun