Scribd

[Type text] December 4, 2019

BY CM/ECF

The Honorable Edgardo Ramos United States District Judge Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007

Re:

United States v. Richard Jimenez

, 18 Cr. 779 (ER)

Dear Judge Ramos: The defendant in the above-captioned case is scheduled to be sentenced on December 11, 2019 at 3:30 p.m. For the reasons set forth below, the Government believes that the stipulated Guidelines sentence of 300

months’ imprisonment would be sufficient, but

not greater than necessary, to meet the purposes of sentencing.

I.

Offense Conduct

On February 4, 2018, the defendant participated in a gunpoint robbery of a marijuana dealer who was selling in an apartment located in the vicinity of East 184th Street and Washington Avenue in the Bronx, New York. (PSR ¶ 13). During the robbery, the defendant

shot and killed Jonathan Tuck, who was one of the marijuana dealer’s customers inside of the

apartment. (PSR ¶ 13). Prior to the robbery, the defendant and co-defendants Luis Semiday, Kevin Cruz, Curtis Hines, and Ira Lawson met at a nearby apartment building to plan the robbery. Semiday assisted in the planning, supplied the firearms used during the robbery, and provided instructions on how the robbery would be carried out. During the robbery, Semiday was in phone communication

with Cruz and Hines. Hines and Lawson went to the marijuana dealer’s apartment to conduct

reconnaissance, make sure that the marijuana dealer was unarmed, and to make sure that the

marijuana dealer’s apartment would be unlocked at the time of the robbery. (PSR ¶ 14).

The defendant and Cruz then

entered the marijuana dealer’s apartment armed with firearms and

with masks covering their faces. They brandished the guns and yelled at the occupants of the apartment to get down. The defendant then pistol-whipped Jonathan Tuck.

The defendant’s gun

went off and shot Tuck in the head. Hines, Lawson, Cruz, and the defendant then fled the apartment. (PSR ¶ 14). Emergency medical personnel transported Jonathan Tuck to the hospital, who was pronounced dead later that night. Tuck was 25 years old on the night he was killed.

The Silvio J. Mollo Building

One Saint Andrew’s Plaza

New York, New York 10007

U.S. Department of Justice

United States Attorney Southern District of New York

Case 1:18-cr-00779-ER Document 52 Filed 12/04/19 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 On October 24, 2018, an indictment was filed charging the defendant with Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951; Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951 and 2; and using and carrying a firearm during and in furtherance of a crime of violence, resulting in murder, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 924(j) and 2. The defendant was arrested on October 30, 2018.

II.

The Defendant’s Plea and Applicable Guidelines Range

On July 30, 2019

, the defendant pleaded guilty to a superseding information (the “S

1

Information”) charging the defendant with one count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery,

in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, and one count of Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951 and 2. (PSR ¶¶ 1-3). Pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 2B3.1, the plea agreement stipulated that the offense level is determined under § 2A1.1 because a victim was killed under circumstances that would constitute murder. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1(a), the plea agreement stipulated that the base offense level is 43. Assuming a three-level reduction d

ue to the defendant’s acceptance

of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, the plea agreement stipulated a total offense level of 40. The plea agreement also stipulated that the defendant had two criminal history points, resulting in a Criminal History Category of II. As a result, the plea agreement stipulated that the applicable Guidelines range was 324

months’ to

405

months’

imprisonment. However, because the statutorily authorized maximum sentence of 300

months’ imprisonment is less than the minimum of the applicable Guideline range,

pursuant to § 5G1.1(a), the plea agreement stipulated that the Guideline sentence is 300

months’

imprisonment. (PSR ¶ 5). In the PSR, prepared on October 21, 2019, the Probation Office found that the Guidelines sentence is 300

months’

imprisonment. (PSR ¶¶ 26-41, 78).

III.

Discussion A.

Applicable Law

Although

United States

v.

Booker

held that the Guidelines are no longer mandatory, it also held that they remain in place and that district courts must

“

consult

”

the Guidelines and

“

take them into account

”

when sentencing. 543 U.S. 220, 264 (2005). As the Supreme Court stated,

“

a district court should begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly calculating the applicable Guidelines range

,” which

“

should be the starting point and the initial benchmark.

”

Gall

v.

United States

, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007). After that calculation, a sentencing judge must consider seven factors outlined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a): (1)

“

the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and c

haracteristics of the defendant;”

(2) the four legitimate purposes of sentencing, as set forth below; (3)

“

t

he kinds of sentences available;”

(4) the Guidelines range itself; (5) any relevant policy statement by the Sentencing Commission; (6)

“

the need to avoid unwarranted sentence

disparities among defendants;”

and (7)

“

the need to provide restitution to any victims,

”

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(7).

See Gall

, 552 U.S. at 50 & n.6.


Page 3 In determining the appropriate sentence, the statute directs judges to

“

impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes

”

of sentencing, which are: (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).

B. The Stipulated Guidelines Sentence is a Reasonable Sentence in this Case.

The Government submits that the Stipulated Guidelines Sentence of 300

months’

imprisonment is necessary in this case to reflect the seriousness of the criminal conduct, protect the public, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the offense. At the outset, a substantial sentence of incarceration is necessary to reflect the seriousness of the crime and the gravity of the harm caused by the defendant

’s actions.

On February 4, 2018, the defendant entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit a crime of violence

—

a gunpoint robbery and home invasion of a marijuana dealer. The robbery involved substantial planning and coordination. The defendant and his four co-conspirators met beforehand to plan the robbery, and co-

defendants Curtis Hines and Ira Lawson went to the marijuana dealer’s home to conduct

reconnaissance and ensure that nobody in the apartment was armed. The defendant agreed to illegally carry a loaded gun during the robbery and to brandish the gun at victims after entering

the marijuana dealer’s home. The defendant then

used a loaded gun to pistol-whip Jonathan Tuck

—

a defenseless and unarmed bystander in the apartment

—

which resulted in Tuck being shot and killed. Tuck was 25 years old at the time of the murder, and his family and friends will

experience the consequences of the defendant’s actions forever.

The victim impact statements submitted by Tuck

’

s family and friends describe in painful detail the gravity of the harm caused by the defendant

’

s actions. Only a sentence of 300

months’ imprisonment adequately reflects the

seriousness of this brutal and reprehensible crime and provides just punishment for the offense.

The defendant’s criminal history and individual characteristics also suggest that a

substantial term of imprisonment is necessary here. In November 2016, the defendant was arrested and ultimately pleaded guilty to Assault in the Third Degree. The defendant was sentenced to 8

months’ imprisonment.

(PSR ¶ 39). In June 2017

—

just months after being released from prison

—

the defendant posted a photograph of himself on social media wearing a red bandana and holding up a large bag of marijuana.

See

Photograph of Social Media Post on June 29, 2017, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Less than a year after being released from prison, the defendant then committed this robbery and murder on February 4, 2018. This violent robbery

—

resulting in the well-publicized death of an innocent 25-year old man

—

should have been a wake-up call for the defendant to turn away from committing additional crimes. But in May 2018

—

less than four months after the murder of Jonathan Tuck

—

law enforcement officers arrested the defendant after


More From New York Post