United States v. Bishop: Harmless Error, Rule 404(b), and Sentencing in Federal Prison-Contraband Prosecutions

United States v. Bishop: Harmless Error, Rule 404(b), and Sentencing in Federal Prison-Contraband Prosecutions

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Date: November 20, 2025
Disposition: Convictions and sentence affirmed (non-precedential)

I. Introduction

United States v. Antonio Bishop arises from a prison-contraband scheme at USP Canaan and presents three central appellate questions:

  1. Whether testimony implying that the defendant had previously introduced drugs into prison or threatened federal officials violated Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and warranted a mistrial.
  2. Whether any evidentiary error was harmless in light of the trial record, including defense counsel’s concessions in closing argument.
  3. Whether the defendant’s 168-month sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable, particularly as to the organizer/leader enhancement and denial of an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.

Although the Third Circuit explicitly designates this opinion as “NOT PRECEDENTIAL” and therefore non-binding under I.O.P. 5.7, it provides an instructive illustration of:

  • How Rule 404(b) can be implicated by seemingly “background” testimony.
  • The limits of the “opening the door” doctrine in overcoming the Federal Rules of Evidence.
  • The rigorous application of harmless error review where the government’s evidence is overwhelming and the defense concedes critical elements.
  • The standards for applying the organizer/leader enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) and for denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.

II. Factual and Procedural Background

A. The Contraband Scheme

In December 2020, a federal grand jury indicted Antonio Bishop, who was then an inmate at USP Canaan, on:

  • Count One: Attempting to provide contraband (suboxone) to a federal inmate, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(1).
  • Count Two: Attempting, as a federal inmate, to obtain contraband (tobacco), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2).

The government’s theory was that in December 2019, while housed in the Residential Drug Abuse Program (“RDAP”) unit at USP Canaan, Bishop orchestrated a plan to smuggle suboxone and tobacco into the prison for distribution, using outside associates and exploiting the prison’s property-transfer process.

On January 13, 2020, a corrections officer, Steve Potter, recovered a package at USP Canaan’s warehouse. The package:

  • Was addressed to inmate Louis Pitts, also in the RDAP unit.
  • Pretended to come from USP Atlanta, accompanied by an inter-facility property sheet.

Finding the package suspicious, Potter turned it over to Special Investigative Services Technician Mark Turner. Turner’s search revealed:

  • 22 bags of tobacco hidden inside ramen noodles; and
  • 194 strips of suboxone concealed inside boxes of Little Debbie snacks, later lab-confirmed as a narcotic drug.

Turner confirmed that Pitts had not, in fact, been sent a package from USP Atlanta, confirming the package was contraband.

B. Bishop’s Confessions

On January 15, 2020, after the contraband was discovered, Bishop asked to speak with correctional officers. In an unrecorded interview, he:

  • Admitted he had “mastermind[ed]” the effort to smuggle the tobacco and suboxone into USP Canaan.
  • Explained he did so because he wanted to buy his son a car.

Five days later, during another unrecorded interview, Bishop gave more details about the scheme.

C. The Required Monitoring Program Testimony

At trial, Turner also explained how he became familiar with Bishop’s voice. On cross-examination, defense counsel probed whether Turner could reliably identify Bishop’s voice on recordings. Turner responded that:

  • He and Bishop spoke once or twice a week while in the prison chow line.
  • Bishop was on the Required Monitoring System and would ask Turner about that and about his emails.

On redirect, the prosecutor asked a seemingly neutral background question: “What is the Required Monitoring Program?” Turner answered:

Required Monitoring is a program that the Bureau of Prisons has. There’s multiple reasons why you get placed on Required Monitoring. If you have introduced drugs at a previous facility, if you threaten Federal officials, there’s a plethora of reasons that places you on Required Monitoring.

Defense counsel immediately objected, arguing that this implied Bishop had previously introduced drugs or threatened officials, and moved for a mistrial under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), also citing the government’s lack of notice under Rule 404(b)(3).

The District Court:

  • Overruled the objection.
  • Denied the mistrial motion, reasoning that the defense had “opened the door” by asking about Turner’s familiarity with Bishop’s voice.
  • Limited further questioning so the prosecutor would not get into the specific reasons Bishop was on Required Monitoring.

D. Defense Strategy and Jury Verdict

The defense presented no affirmative evidence. In closing argument, defense counsel:

  • Conceded that Bishop was an “inmate of the prison.”
  • Conceded guilt on Count Two (attempting, as an inmate, to obtain contraband).
  • Conceded that the government had proven the second and third elements of Count One.

Counsel argued instead that Count One failed as a matter of statutory interpretation: in his view, 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(1) applied only to non-inmates providing contraband to an inmate, such that an inmate could not be convicted under that subsection. The District Court rejected this theory and instructed the jury accordingly; Bishop did not challenge those instructions on appeal, and his counsel had conceded “there was no case law supporting his interpretation.”1

The jury convicted Bishop on both counts. His post-trial motions under Rules 29 and 33 (for judgment of acquittal and a new trial) were denied.

E. Sentencing

The District Court calculated the advisory Guidelines range and imposed a sentence of:

  • 168 months’ imprisonment (14 years),
  • at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range.

Key sentencing determinations included:

  1. A four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) for being an organizer or leader of criminal activity involving at least five “participants.”
  2. Denial of a two-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility.

On appeal, Bishop challenged:

  • The denial of his mistrial motion and admission of Turner’s “Required Monitoring” testimony.
  • The § 3B1.1(a) organizer/leader enhancement.
  • The denial of acceptance of responsibility.
  • The substantive reasonableness of his sentence, including alleged sentencing disparities.

III. Summary of the Third Circuit’s Opinion

The Third Circuit (Judge Roth, joined by Judges Matey and Freeman) affirmed in all respects. The court held:

  1. Turner’s description of the Required Monitoring Program did fall within the scope of Rule 404(b) because it implied that Bishop had previously introduced drugs or threatened federal officials. The doctrine of “opening the door” does not negate the Federal Rules of Evidence.
  2. The court assumed without deciding that admission of this testimony was erroneous, but held that any such error was harmless:
    • The government’s evidence was “truly overwhelming,” particularly Bishop’s own confessions and corroborating physical evidence.
    • Defense counsel’s concessions in closing argument left the jury with only a narrow legal question, which the District Court correctly resolved.
  3. The denial of a mistrial was not an abuse of discretion because:
    • The challenged remark was isolated, not “pronounced and persistent.”
    • The other evidence was strong.
    • The District Court limited further questioning and, although it did not give a curative instruction, no such instruction had been requested.
  4. The District Court did not clearly err in finding at least five criminal “participants” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), counting:
    • Bishop, his brother, Smith, and Pitts; and
    • Hemphill, whose email account and information were used, and who the court inferred knowingly assisted, based on circumstantial evidence.
  5. The denial of an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 was appropriate:
    • Bishop retracted his confession and proclaimed innocence before trial.
    • At sentencing, Bishop again denied responsibility and blamed others.
  6. The 168-month within-Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable:
    • The court properly considered his lack of remorse and high criminal history.
    • Bishop failed to identify similarly situated defendants to support his disparity argument.

IV. Detailed Analysis

A. Rule 404(b), “Opening the Door,” and Harmless Error

1. The Challenged Testimony and Rule 404(b)

Rule 404(b)(1) provides that evidence of “any other crime, wrong, or act” is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in conformity with that character. Even if the prior act is only implied—not directly proved—Rule 404(b) can still be triggered if the jury could reasonably infer that the defendant committed some prior bad act.

Here, Turner did not testify explicitly that Bishop had previously introduced drugs or threatened an official. Instead, he:

  • Linked Bishop generally to the Required Monitoring Program; and
  • Explained to the jury that inmates are placed in that program for reasons such as having “introduced drugs at a previous facility” or “threaten[ing] Federal officials.”

The Third Circuit relied on United States v. Shavers, 693 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 2012), to clarify the scope of Rule 404(b). In Shavers, the court held that Rule 404(b) applies even where there is no direct proof that the defendant committed a prior crime, so long as the jury could infer such involvement—for example, through association with someone who committed a prior robbery.

Applying that logic, the panel concluded that Turner’s explanation of Required Monitoring was covered by Rule 404(b) because the jury could reasonably infer that:

  • Bishop had introduced drugs at a previous facility, or
  • Bishop had threatened federal officials, or
  • Bishop had otherwise engaged in serious misconduct warranting special monitoring.

Thus, the testimony was at least potentially inadmissible 404(b) “other-act” evidence, and the government’s lack of 404(b)(3) notice became relevant.

2. “Opening the Door” Does Not Overrule the Rules of Evidence

The government argued that Rule 404(b) did not apply because defense counsel had “opened the door” by questioning Turner about his familiarity with Bishop’s voice. The idea was that once the defense injected the topic of voice familiarity, the prosecution could elicit explanatory background about Required Monitoring, even if it carried some implication of prior misconduct.

The Third Circuit rejected any claim that “opening the door” could displace the Rules of Evidence, quoting the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Houlihan v. City of Chicago, 871 F.3d 540, 553 (7th Cir. 2017), which in turn quoted Duran v. Town of Cicero:

“[T]he Rules of Evidence do not simply evaporate when one party opens the door on an issue.”

The panel agreed that:

  • The prosecutor’s question (“What is the Required Monitoring Program?”) was facially permissible as background, especially after the defense had raised the concept on cross.
  • But the substantive content of Turner’s answer—linking Required Monitoring to prior drug introductions and threats—did implicate Rule 404(b).

This is a significant reaffirmation that:

  • “Opening the door” is not a license to introduce otherwise inadmissible character or propensity evidence.
  • Counsel must still navigate Rule 404(b) carefully, even when responding to lines of questioning initiated by the opponent.

3. Harmless Error Framework

The Third Circuit bypassed a definitive ruling on whether Rule 404(b) was actually violated. Instead, it assumed error arguendo and evaluated whether any such error was harmless.

For non-constitutional evidentiary error, the Third Circuit applies the “highly probable” standard:

  • An error is harmless if it is “highly probable that the error did not contribute to the judgment,” requiring a “sure conviction that the error did not prejudice the defendant.”
    – United States v. Shaw, 891 F.3d 441, 453 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Bailey, 840 F.3d 99, 124 (3d Cir. 2016)).
  • The key question is whether the error affected the result of the trial.
    – United States v. Boyd, 999 F.3d 171, 183 (3d Cir. 2021).

The court also cited United States v. Valentin, 118 F.4th 579, 584 n.6 (3d Cir. 2024), reaffirming that a conviction will not be disturbed for harmless evidentiary error.

4. Application: Overwhelming Evidence and Counsel’s Concessions

The panel found that even assuming a Rule 404(b) violation, any error was harmless for two reinforcing reasons:

  1. Overwhelming independent evidence of guilt.
    • Bishop confessed twice, before knowing he was under investigation, admitting that he “mastermind[ed]” the scheme and explaining his motive (to buy his son a car).
    • Physical evidence corroborated the existence and sophistication of the contraband scheme.
    • The package was demonstrably fraudulent (purportedly from USP Atlanta though no such transfer occurred).

    The court borrowed language from Shaw, which in turn quoted United States v. Christie, 624 F.3d 558, 571 (3d Cir. 2010), characterizing the government’s case as involving a “truly overwhelming quantity of legitimate evidence” against Bishop.

  2. Defense counsel’s strategic concessions in closing argument.
    • Counsel conceded guilt on Count Two (attempting as an inmate to obtain contraband).
    • He conceded that the government had proven the second and third elements of Count One.
    • He acknowledged there was no case law supporting his interpretation of § 1791(a)(1).

    As a result, the jury was left to resolve essentially one legal question: whether § 1791(a)(1) can apply to an inmate who attempts to provide contraband to another inmate. The District Court instructed that it could, and Bishop did not contest that instruction on appeal.

Given this context, the Third Circuit held it was “highly probable” that Turner’s single remark about Required Monitoring did not contribute to the verdict.

5. Denial of Mistrial

When reviewing the denial of a mistrial based on improper witness remarks, the Third Circuit applies a three-part test from United States v. Bailey, 840 F.3d 99, 131 (3d Cir. 2016):

  1. Whether the remarks were pronounced and persistent.
  2. The strength of the other evidence against the defendant.
  3. The curative actions taken by the district court.

Applying that framework:

  • The remark was a single, isolated statement, not repeated or emphasized.
  • The government’s evidence, including multiple confessions and physical contraband evidence, was overwhelming.
  • The District Court limited further questioning so the prosecutor would not “get into the reasons why [Bishop] was in the Required Monitoring Program.”

The court noted that no curative instruction was given but emphasized that:

“The District Court did not issue a curative instruction, but that was not reversible error because there is no indication in the record that defense counsel requested one.”

This point relies on Shavers and Ansell v. Green Acres Contracting Co., 347 F.3d 515, 526 (3d Cir. 2003): failure to request a curative instruction can be fatal to such an argument on appeal.

The panel further analogized to United States v. Dunbar, 767 F.2d 72, 76 (3d Cir. 1985), holding that when evidence of guilt is overwhelming, failure to declare a mistrial can be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the Eighth Circuit’s United States v. Urqhart, 469 F.3d 745, 749 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Urick, 431 F.3d 300, 305 (8th Cir. 2005)).

In short:

  • The single Required Monitoring remark, against the backdrop of strong proof and defense concessions, did not warrant the “drastic remedy” of a mistrial.
  • Any error in denying the motion was itself harmless.

B. Interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(1) as Applied to Inmates

Section 1791(a) has two relevant subsections:

  • § 1791(a)(1): “Whoever in violation of a statute or a rule or order issued under a statute, provides to an inmate of a prison a prohibited object, or attempts to do so…”
  • § 1791(a)(2): “Whoever, being an inmate of a prison, makes, possesses, or obtains, or attempts to make, possess, or obtain, a prohibited object…”

Defense counsel argued that:

  • § 1791(a)(1) applies only to non-inmates (“outsiders”) who provide contraband to inmates.
  • Therefore, as an inmate, Bishop could not be convicted under (a)(1), but only, if at all, under (a)(2).

The District Court rejected that argument, and the Third Circuit noted:

  • Bishop did not challenge the jury instructions on this point on appeal.
  • His trial counsel conceded that “there was no case law supporting his interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(1).”

By affirming without criticism of the statutory application, the panel effectively accepts that:

  • The phrase “whoever” is broad enough to include both inmates and non-inmates.
  • An inmate may be convicted under § 1791(a)(1) for attempting to provide contraband to another inmate.

Although this ruling is non-precedential, it aligns with a natural reading of “whoever” and underscores that the statutory scheme does not insulate an inmate from liability as a provider of contraband simply because § 1791(a)(2) separately criminalizes obtaining contraband by inmates.

C. Sentencing: Organizer/Leader Enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a)

1. Legal Standard

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) provides for a four-level increase if:

the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.

Key concepts:

  • A “participant” is a person who is criminally responsible for the offense, whether or not convicted.
  • Courts have held that a participant is someone who:
    • was aware of the criminal objective, and
    • knowingly offered assistance.
      – See United States v. Anthony, 280 F.3d 694, 698 (6th Cir. 2002); United States v. Boutte, 13 F.3d 855, 860 (5th Cir. 1994).

The Third Circuit reviews such factual determinations for clear error, overturning only if they lack substantial evidence, are against the clear weight of the evidence, or reflect a misapprehension of the record. See United States v. Johnson, 302 F.3d 139, 153 (3d Cir. 2002).

2. Application to Bishop

Bishop conceded that at least four participants existed:

  • Himself;
  • His brother;
  • Smith (an outside associate); and
  • Pitts (the inmate-recipient of the contraband package).

He disputed that Hemphill was a participant, arguing that:

  • The only evidence was that Bishop used Hemphill’s email account and that Bishop planned to use Hemphill in the scheme.
  • That, he contended, was insufficient to show Hemphill knowingly joined the criminal activity.

The Third Circuit, however, noted additional record facts:

  • Bishop had communicated Hemphill’s information (e.g., email details) to at least one associate on the outside before a recorded call with Smith referencing Hemphill.
  • Bishop admitted that he discontinued using Hemphill’s account only because Hemphill was no longer in the RDAP program — not because Hemphill was uninvolved.

From these circumstances, the District Court inferred that Hemphill:

  • Was aware of the criminal objective (to bring contraband into the prison); and
  • Offered assistance (by making his account/information available).

The Third Circuit upheld that inference as not clearly erroneous, recognizing that participant status can be established by circumstantial evidence where a pattern of communication and conduct supports knowing involvement.

Key takeaway: in prison-contraband conspiracies, those whose identities or communication channels are knowingly used to facilitate contraband may be counted as “participants” for § 3B1.1 purposes, even if their roles are peripheral and proven circumstantially.

D. Sentencing: Acceptance of Responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1

1. Legal Standard

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) allows a two-level reduction if:

the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense.

The defendant bears the burden of showing entitlement to the reduction by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Boone, 279 F.3d 163, 193 (3d Cir. 2003).

Important principles from Third Circuit precedent (e.g., United States v. DeLeon-Rodriguez, 70 F.3d 764, 767 (3d Cir. 1995)):

  • Going to trial does not automatically preclude acceptance of responsibility.
  • But the reduction is “generally not meant” for defendants who put the government to its burden of proof and contest factual guilt at trial.
  • The sentencing judge is in a “unique position” to evaluate acceptance and receives great deference on review.

2. Bishop’s Conduct

Bishop argued that he should receive the reduction because:

  • He fully confessed to authorities before knowing of any investigation.
  • At trial he raised only a legal/statutory argument, not a factual defense.

The Third Circuit, however, stressed the entire arc of his conduct:

  • He later retracted his confession and asserted actual innocence before jury selection.
  • His counsel’s cross-examination of Turner sought to undermine the evidence of Bishop’s involvement, including his confessions.
  • At sentencing, Bishop:
    • Blamed his trial counsel for the conviction.
    • Denied having used Pitts’s email account.
    • Accused correctional officers of lying and threatening him.

In light of this, the court held that Bishop had not clearly demonstrated acceptance of responsibility, and the District Court’s contrary conclusion was not clearly erroneous.

This reinforces that:

  • Early admissions can be undermined by later retractions and litigation posture.
  • Attacking the truthfulness of key government witnesses and denying core conduct is incompatible with § 3E1.1’s requirement of a clear acceptance of responsibility.

E. Substantive Reasonableness and Sentencing Disparities

1. General Standard

Under United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 567–68 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc), the Third Circuit reviews sentences for abuse of discretion. Where a sentence is procedurally sound, the court will affirm unless:

no reasonable sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence on that particular defendant for the reasons the district court provided.

That formulation appears in United States v. Siddons, 660 F.3d 699, 708 (3d Cir. 2011). A defendant challenging the substantive reasonableness of a within-Guidelines sentence faces a “heavy burden,” as reaffirmed in United States v. Seibert, 971 F.3d 396, 402 (3d Cir. 2020).

2. Bishop’s Arguments and the Court’s Response

Bishop argued that:

  • His 168-month sentence, although at the bottom of the Guidelines range, was excessive compared to other prison-contraband cases.
  • His personal history and circumstances warranted a downward variance.

The Third Circuit rejected these arguments:

  • Airdisagreement with the district court’s weighing of mitigating factors does not make a sentence unreasonable. See Seibert and United States v. Bungar, 478 F.3d 540, 546 (3d Cir. 2007).
  • Sentencing courts may legitimately consider a defendant’s lack of remorse. See United States v. Pawlowski, 27 F.4th 897, 912 n.8 (3d Cir. 2022).
  • As to disparities, United States v. Clay, 128 F.4th 163, 185 (3d Cir. 2025), requires defendants to identify similarly situated comparators. Bishop did not identify any defendants whose circumstances “mirrored his own.”
  • The high Guidelines range resulted from:
    • Applicable enhancements (such as the organizer/leader enhancement), and
    • Bishop’s placement in the highest possible criminal history category.

Given these factors, the panel saw no abuse of discretion and concluded Bishop failed to overcome the presumption that a within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable.

V. Key Legal Concepts Simplified

1. Rule 404(b) “Other-Act” Evidence

Rule 404(b) regulates evidence of prior bad acts:

  • Purpose: To prevent juries from convicting because they think the defendant is a “bad person” who deserves punishment.
  • Prohibited use: Prior acts cannot be used to show that the defendant has a bad character and therefore probably committed the charged crime.
  • Permitted uses: Such evidence can be admitted for limited purposes (motive, intent, plan, identity, etc.), provided Rule 403 (unfair prejudice vs. probative value) is also satisfied, and the prosecution gives advance notice under Rule 404(b)(3).
  • Implied acts: Even if the prior act is only suggested (as with the Required Monitoring testimony), Rule 404(b) can apply if a jury could reasonably infer prior wrongdoing.

2. “Opening the Door”

“Opening the door” is a fairness doctrine:

  • If one party introduces or suggests something that would otherwise mislead the jury, the other party may be allowed to introduce responsive evidence to correct the misimpression.
  • But it is not a blank check: the Federal Rules of Evidence still apply, including Rule 404(b) and Rule 403. They “do not simply evaporate” when a party opens the door.

3. Harmless Error

Not every trial error requires reversal. Under harmless-error review:

  • The appellate court asks whether it is “highly probable” the error did not affect the verdict.
  • If so, the conviction stands, even if the trial judge technically erred.
  • The more overwhelming the evidence of guilt, the more likely an error will be deemed harmless.

4. Mistrial

A mistrial terminates the trial before a verdict. It is an extreme remedy, used when curative instructions or other measures cannot correct serious prejudice. Relevant factors include:

  • How serious and repeated the improper remark was.
  • How strong the rest of the evidence was.
  • What the trial judge did to mitigate the problem (e.g., sustaining objections, limiting questions, issuing curative instructions).

5. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) Organizer/Leader Enhancement

To apply this 4-level enhancement, the court must find:

  • The defendant was an “organizer or leader.” This typically involves decision-making authority, recruitment, control, or planning.
  • The criminal activity involved:
    • Five or more participants, or
    • Was “otherwise extensive.”

A “participant” is anyone criminally responsible who knowingly helps, even in a limited role, whether or not they are charged.

6. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 Acceptance of Responsibility

This reduction rewards defendants who clearly accept responsibility for their crime. Factors include:

  • Truthful admission of conduct.
  • Voluntary termination of criminal conduct.
  • Early plea or confession.
  • Whether the defendant later denies guilt or obstructs justice.

A defendant who goes to trial can sometimes still get the reduction (e.g., where he contests only a legal issue), but not if he denies essential factual elements of guilt or undermines his earlier admissions.

7. Substantive Reasonableness of Sentences

A sentence is substantively unreasonable only if it is so excessive (or lenient) that no reasonable judge would have imposed it, given:

  • The advisory Guidelines range.
  • The statutory factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (nature of the offense, history and characteristics of the defendant, deterrence, protection of the public, etc.).
  • Any mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

Within-Guidelines sentences are strongly presumed reasonable, and arguments about comparative leniency or harshness must be anchored in specific, similarly situated defendants.

VI. Broader Impact and Practical Implications

A. For Trial Judges

  • Caution in allowing “background” testimony: Even seemingly neutral explanations (like Required Monitoring policies) can carry implied 404(b) risks.
  • Need to separate question and answer: A permissible question may elicit an impermissible answer; judges must be prepared to strike or limit responses.
  • Harmless error lens: This opinion illustrates how appellate courts will often affirm if the record shows overwhelmingly strong evidence and defense concessions, even where evidentiary rulings are doubtful.

B. For Prosecutors

  • Rule 404(b) notice obligations remain critical, even when evidence appears to be “contextual” or “background.” If prior misconduct may be inferred, 404(b) is implicated.
  • “Opening the door” is not a safe harbor: Prosecutors cannot rely on that doctrine to circumvent evidentiary restrictions.
  • Record-building matters: The Third Circuit’s harmless-error determination relied heavily on the strength of the government’s case and the clarity of the confession and corroborating evidence.

C. For Defense Counsel

  • Cross-examination strategically opens (and narrows) doors: Questions about topics like monitoring status can invite responsive testimony that implies prior bad acts. Counsel must anticipate such risks.
  • Request curative instructions: If damaging testimony comes in, it is crucial to ask the court to instruct the jury to disregard or limit its use; failure to do so will weaken appellate challenges.
  • Concessions in closing can drive harmless-error analysis: While partial concessions can be a sound trial strategy, they also reduce the likelihood that evidentiary errors will be found prejudicial.
  • Acceptance-of-responsibility strategy should be consistent: Early confessions followed by retractions, accusations against others, and factual denials make it difficult to obtain § 3E1.1 credit.

D. For Sentencing Advocates

  • Participants under § 3B1.1: The case shows that circumstantial evidence of knowing assistance (e.g., use of an email account, communication of identifying information) can suffice to count someone as a participant.
  • Disparity arguments: It is not enough to point to other cases with lower sentences; counsel must demonstrate that the comparators are truly similarly situated in offense conduct, criminal history, role, and applicable enhancements.
  • Remorse matters: Lack of remorse can support rejecting a variance and may contribute to denial of acceptance-of-responsibility credit.

E. Non-Precedential but Persuasive

Although United States v. Bishop is explicitly non-precedential and thus not binding, it is likely to be cited for persuasive value in:

  • Prison-contraband cases involving mixed roles (inmates both providing and obtaining contraband).
  • Harmless-error disputes where defense counsel have conceded substantial elements and the record is strong.
  • Arguments over whether certain “background” policies (like monitoring programs) trigger Rule 404(b).
  • Sentencing appeals challenging organizer/leader enhancements in relatively small but coordinated prison conspiracies.

VII. Conclusion

United States v. Bishop offers a compact but rich illustration of several recurring themes in federal criminal practice:

  • Rule 404(b) applies broadly to any evidence that reasonably suggests prior bad acts, even when framed as institutional background, and “opening the door” does not neutralize the Rules of Evidence.
  • Harmless error doctrine plays a decisive role when the government’s evidence is overwhelming and the defense concedes key aspects of guilt; isolated improper remarks are unlikely to result in reversal absent substantial prejudice.
  • In sentencing, the Third Circuit continues to defer heavily to district courts:
    • Organizer/leader enhancements can rest on circumstantial evidence of knowing participation by co-actors.
    • Acceptance-of-responsibility reductions are denied where defendants retract confessions and persist in denying responsibility.
    • Within-Guidelines sentences are difficult to overturn, especially absent concrete comparator cases.

While not a formal precedent, the opinion signals how the Third Circuit is likely to approach similar evidentiary and sentencing issues in future prison-contraband prosecutions and underscores the premium it places on the totality of the record, strategic concessions, and the consistency (or inconsistency) of a defendant’s acceptance of responsibility over time.

1 Opinion at A24 n.3.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Comments