United States v. Bishop is a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a conviction for a crime committed in a state court could be used to enhance a sentence for a federal crime. The Court held that a state conviction could be used to enhance a sentence for a federal crime, as long as the state conviction was valid and the federal crime was committed after the state conviction. The case involved a man named Bishop, who was convicted of a federal crime and sentenced to a longer sentence than he would have received without the prior state conviction. Bishop argued that the state conviction should not be used to enhance his sentence, as it was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the state conviction was valid and that it could be used to enhance the sentence for the federal crime. The Court reasoned that the state conviction was valid, as it was obtained in accordance with the laws of the state. Furthermore, the Court held that the federal crime was committed after the state conviction, and thus the state conviction could be used to enhance the sentence for the federal crime. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that a state conviction could be used to enhance a sentence for a federal crime, as long as the state conviction was valid and the federal crime was committed after the state conviction.

In United States v. Bishop, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a conviction for embezzlement of public funds should be subject to punishment under both state and federal law. The majority opinion held that such an offense could only be punished by one government or the other, not both. Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that Congress had clearly intended for dual punishments in cases like these when it passed legislation allowing them. He argued that if Congress had wanted to limit punishments in this way, they would have done so explicitly rather than leaving it up to interpretation by courts. Furthermore, he noted that punishing offenders twice did not constitute double jeopardy because each government has its own set of laws and penalties which are independent of each other's jurisdiction; thus two separate convictions do not violate any constitutional protections against multiple prosecutions for the same crime.