[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-12580

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:05-cr-00036-CAR-CHW-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff -Appellee,

versus

ANTONIO BISHOP, 

a.k.a. Little Bishop, 

Defendant -Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(February 28, 2014)

Before TJOFLAT, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 13-12580 Date Filed: 02/28/2014 Page: 1 of 5 
2

On January 17, 2006, Antonio Ramon Bishop pled guilty to conspiring, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, to possess with intent to distribute more than 50 

grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), and on May 30, 2006, 

the District Court sentenced him to a prison term of 70 months, followed by a 5-

years’ term of supervised release.1

 

Bishop began serving his term of supervised release on August 2, 2010. On 

September 9, 2011, local police arrested him and charged him with participation in 

a drug trafficking conspiracy. On September 22, 2011, the District Court’s 

probation office filed a petition to revoke the supervised release on four grounds, 

one being his September 9, 2011, arrest. Case No. 3:05-cr-00036.

In November 2011, a federal grand jury indicted Bishop for the conduct that 

led to his September 9, 2011, arrest, charging him and Rasheed Scott with 

conspiring, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, to possess with intent to distribute over 

five kilograms of cocaine and over 28 grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 841(a). Case No. 3:11-cr-00056. On April 19, 2012, Bishop, pursuant to 

a plea agreement, pled guilty to a superseding information in that case, which 

charged him with the same offense but omitted the drug quantities. In the plea 

agreement, the Government promised to inform the District Court at sentencing of 

any assistance Bishop had provided and to move for a downward departure under 

 1 The District Court subsequently reduced his prison term to 57 months as a result of 

Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines.

Case: 13-12580 Date Filed: 02/28/2014 Page: 2 of 5 
3

U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 if the assistance had concluded prior to sentencing. The plea 

agreement did not mention Bishop’s violation of the terms of his supervised 

release, in Case No. 3:05-cr-00036. 

On May 29, 2013, Bishop appeared before the District Court for sentencing 

in Case No. 3:11-cr-00056 and for the final hearing on the petition to revoke his 

supervised release, in Case No. 3:05-cr-00036. The court first addressed the 

sentencing in Case No. 3:11-cr-00056. After hearing from counsel and affording 

Bishop his right of allocution, the court found that Bishop was a career offender, 

that his Guideline sentence range called for 151-181 months’ imprisonment, 

granted the Government’s § 5K1.1 motion for substantial assistance2 and 

sentenced him to a prison term of 120 months. 

The court then turned to the petition to revoke supervised release, found that 

the conditions had been violated and that the Guideline sentence range called for 

24 to 30 months’ imprisonment, and sentenced him to a term of 24 months 

consecutive to the term of 120 months in Case No. 3:11-cr-00056. The court, 

noting that no “objections or contested issues” had been raised, asked the parties, 

“are there any objections to the sentence or the manner in which it was imposed?” 

With that, the following colloquy took place:

MR. BAKER (for Bishop): Your Honor, I have no objections 

to the sentence. I would ask that the Court -- one thing that was

 2

 Bishop cooperated in the Government’s effort to bring his co-conspirators to justice.

Case: 13-12580 Date Filed: 02/28/2014 Page: 3 of 5 
4

not mentioned during discussion of this sentencing was that

with regard to the probation revocation time -- which, of course, 

the Court has exercised its discretion to run consecutively -- it 

was an integral part of the plea negotiations in this case that, of 

course, the government would have no objection to running it 

concurrently. It is something quite obviously that is not only 

recommended by the commentary -- or the guidelines, but also 

completely in this Court's discretion to run consecutively. But I 

would ask that the Court reconsider running that time 

concurrent based on the fact that it was part of the plea

negotiations that led to a plea in this case and also, of course, 

the 5K developments that have substantially assisted the 

government since the time of the plea.

THE COURT: Well, I'm not exactly sure what the

government's position is on this consecutive versus concurrent.

MS. JARRETT (for the Government): That is my fault, Your 

Honor. When Mr. Baker said that we had envisioned that, I 

should have said specifically that I do not object to Mr. Bishop's 

supervised release violation to be run concurrent. It was a 

discussion but I was concentrating more on the 5K, which is 

where I thought we could have the bigger impact, but the 

government does not object at all to the Court running it 

concurrent.

THE COURT: Well, I'll tell you how I analyzed this so you'll 

understand. I gave him a substantial drop on the 5K for the 

indicted conduct. But I also gave him a substantial drop, six 

months. I would have otherwise given him 30 months,

but I gave him 24. And, again, that's the bottom of guideline 

range there. But he did violate the terms and conditions of his 

supervised release. I mean, that's something independent of the 

crime, and so I'm going to run it consecutive. All right. Thank 

you very much. Anything else? 

MR. BAKER: No, Your Honor.

MS. JARRETT: No, Your Honor.

Case: 13-12580 Date Filed: 02/28/2014 Page: 4 of 5 
5

Bishop now appeals the consecutive 24 months’ sentence the District Court 

imposed in Case No. 3:05-cr-00036, arguing that the Government breached its plea 

agreement promise to recommend—prior to the court’s imposition of sentence—

that the sentence run concurrently with the sentence in Case No. 3:11-cr-00056. 

He asks that we vacate that sentence and remand the case so that the Government 

can go forward with its promise.

We find no merit in the argument. The prosecutor told the court—after it 

elicited the parties’ objections—that the “government does not object at all to the 

Court running [the sentence in Case No. 3:05-cr-00036] concurrent.” In effect, the 

Government was asking the court, while it still had the two cases before it, to 

consider making the sentences run concurrently. And the court entertained the 

request, but rejected it and stated why. If the Government breached the plea 

agreement, the breach was cured. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-12580 Date Filed: 02/28/2014 Page: 5 of 5