United States v. HANDLER, 1:23-cr-00004

Martin Handler pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy to defraud the United States, two counts of federal program theft, and one count of tax evasion, related to misuse of federal daycare grant funds.
He was sentenced within the stipulated sentencing guidelines to 58 months' imprisonment and three years of supervised release, and was ordered to surrender in January 2025.
Handler appealed his conviction and filed a motion for bail pending appeal, alleging the government breached the plea agreement during sentencing.
Handler claimed the government disregarded loss amounts stipulated in the agreement, improperly described his conduct as theft or embezzlement, and introduced new allegations outside the agreement (notably a 'kickback' scheme).
The government opposed, arguing its actions complied with the plea agreement, particularly its provisions allowing presentation of all relevant sentencing facts.
The key issue was whether Handler's appeal raised a substantial question of law or fact justifying bail pending appeal under the four-factor test in 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b).

Issue	Handler's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether government breached plea agreement by introducing facts outside stipulated loss	Bringing up loss figures or facts outside the agreement violated stipulations of fact	The plea agreement allowed presenting any facts relevant to sentencing, even if inconsistent with stipulations	No breach; government permitted to present relevant facts
Whether government breached by characterizing conduct as theft/embezzlement rather than misapplication	Government reneged on understanding, mischaracterized charges	No promise was made to limit characterization; agreement's integration clause governs	No breach; integration clause controls and no binding promise existed
Whether government breached by raising new allegations (e.g., kickbacks) at sentencing	Raising 'kickback' facts outside agreement violated departure provision, even if not considered for sentencing	Such facts were relevant to restitution and § 3553(a) factors, and permitted under plea agreement	No breach; allowed under plea agreement; facts excluded from sentencing consideration
Whether appeal presents a substantial legal question warranting bail pending appeal	Government's conduct raises substantial legal question and could lead to reduced sentence	No substantial question is raised; even if so, outcome unlikely to reduce sentence below time needed to resolve appeal	No substantial question; bail pending appeal denied

United States v. Randell, 761 F.2d 122 (2d Cir. 1985) (sets four-part test for bail pending appeal)
United States v. Helm, 58 F.4th 75 (2d Cir. 2023) (plea agreements interpreted under contract principles, strictly against the government)
United States v. Wilson, 920 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2019) (court scrutinizes government conduct for fairness in plea agreements)
United States v. Rivera, 115 F.4th 141 (2d Cir. 2024) (government may provide sentencing facts beyond stipulation if not seeking guideline enhancement)
United States v. Washington, 297 F. App’x 62 (2d Cir. 2008) (no breach where facts outside stipulations presented, but sentence recommendation stays within stipulated range)