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

U.S. Department of Justice

[Type text]
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York

The Silvio J. Mollo Building

One Saint Andrew’s Plaza
New York, New York 10007

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.
 Case 1:18-cr-00779-ER Document 52 Filed 12/04/19 Page 2 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 “S1
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 due 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 characteristics of the defendant;” (2) the four legitimate purposes of sentencing, as set
forth below; (3) “the 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.
 Case 1:18-cr-00779-ER Document 52 Filed 12/04/19 Page 3 of 4
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
 Case 1:18-cr-00779-ER Document 52 Filed 12/04/19 Page 4 of 4
Page 4

finding in his apartment, among other things, 8 ziplock bags and a larger bag containing marijuana
and 59 ziplock bags containing cocaine sitting in plain view. 1 See NYPD Vouchers and
Laboratory Report, attached hereto as Exhibit B. And on October 12, 2018—less than 3 weeks
before the defendant’s arrest in this case—the defendant posted a photograph of himself on social
media boasting that he was a “SHOOTER”. See Photograph of Social Media Post on October 12,
2018, attached hereto as Exhibit C. Meanwhile, the defendant was not in school or otherwise
gainfully employed during this entire period while he was engaged in criminal activity. (PSR ¶¶
69-73). Put together, the evidence shows that the robbery on February 4, 2018 was not just a
momentary lapse in judgment or a one-time mistake in an otherwise law-abiding life. Rather, the
defendant consciously decided to commit crimes for a living—including a crime of violence that
resulted in the death of a 25-year old man. As a result, the Government respectfully submits that
the Stipulated Guidelines Sentence of 300 months’ imprisonment adequately balances all of the
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the defendant’s personal history and individual
characteristics.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Government respectfully requests that the Court
impose the Stipulated Guidelines Sentence of 300 months’ imprisonment, as such a sentence
would be sufficient but not greater than necessary to serve the legitimate purposes of sentencing.

Respectfully submitted,

GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
United States Attorney

By: /s/ Andrew K. Chan

Andrew K. Chan / Danielle R. Sassoon
Assistant United States Attorneys
(212) 637-1072 / 1115

cc: Defense Counsel for Richard Jimenez

1
The apartment where the search was conducted had three bedrooms. The defendant’s girlfriend
reported that she and the defendant were staying in the bedroom where these controlled substances
were recovered. The defendant also reported that he was staying in the apartment with his
girlfriend.
Case 1:18-cr-00779-ER Document 52-1 Filed 12/04/19 Page 1 of 1

US_000484
Case 1:18-cr-00779-ER Document 52-2 Filed 12/04/19 Page 1 of 4

US_001009
Case 1:18-cr-00779-ER Document 52-2 Filed 12/04/19 Page 2 of 4

US_001010
 Case 1:18-cr-00779-ER Document 52-2 Filed 12/04/19 Page 3 of 4
LABORATORY REPORT

NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT LABORATORY # 2018-044759

POLICE LABORATORY LABORATORY REPORT # 1
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ANALYSIS SECTION COMPLAINT #
INVOICE # 1001094222

Laboratory #: 2018-044759
INVOICED BY: DT3 GARY PEREZ Tax#: Command: NARC DATE SUBMITTED: 06/02/2018
BORO MN NORTH
PCT. OF INVOICE: HOUSING PSA 6 DATE ASSIGNED: 06/02/2018
DEFENDANT(S): AGE: DATE PREPARED: 06/05/2018

TYPE OF ANALYSIS: CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ANALYSIS

EVIDENCE PRESENT AS ITEMIZED ON INVOICE:

RESULTS OF EXAMINATION/ANALYSIS

Item #
1
2A
Qty.
1
13
Description
X YES

Plastic bag(s) cont. vegetative matter

Ziplock bag(s) cont. solid material
NO (SEE REMARKS)

Results
Marihuana
Cocaine
%"$!&$"*%!+% & %& ")&%# !%+"$%) #%)#')!1
Weight
28.071 g (aggregate wt.)
4.022 g (aggregate wt.)
2B 46 Ziplock bag(s) cont. solid material No Analysis 6.486 g (projected
aggregate wt.)
3A 3 Ziplock bag(s) cont. vegetative matter Marihuana 5.081 g (aggregate wt.)
3B 5 Ziplock bag(s) cont. vegetative matter No Analysis 6.282 g (gross wt.)
4 1 Ziplock bag(s) cont. vegetative matter residue No Analysis residue

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS

Substance Identified Item # Weight

Cocaine 2A 4.02 g (aggregate wt.)
Marihuana 1, 3A 33.15 g (aggregate wt.)

REMARKS
⅛ oz = 3.544 g ½ oz = 14.175 g 1 oz = 28.349 g 2 oz = 56.698 g 4 oz = 113.396 g 8 oz = 226.792 g 16 oz = 453.584 g = 1 lb 4535.84 g = 10 lbs

TESTING METHODOLOGY
Unit/Item # Item # Methods Used

THIS REPORT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE ENTIRE CASE FILE. THE CASE FILE MAY BE COMPRISED OF WORKSHEETS, IMAGES, ANALYTICAL DATA AND OTHER DOCUMENTS.
THE DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT CAN BE LOCATED AT THE NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES WEBSITE:
HTTP://WWW.CRIMINALJUSTICE.NY.GOV/FORENSIC/LABREPORTSTANDARDS.HTM
THE RESULTS ARE THE OPINIONS / INTERPRETATIONS / CONCLUSIONS OF THE UNDERSIGNED.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I TESTED/EXAMINED/ANALYZED THE ABOVE DESCRIBED ITEM(S) AND THAT THIS REPORT IS AN ORIGINAL REPORT MADE BY ME. FALSE STATEMENTS
MADE HEREIN ARE PUNISHABLE AS A CLASS “A” MISDEMEANOR PURSUANT TO SECTION 210.45 OF THE NEW YORK STATE PENAL LAW .

CRIM IB Ashley Murphy 06/05/2018 06/05/2018

RANK/TITLE ANALYST NAME ANALYST SIGNATURE TAX # DATE PREPARED DATE ISSUED
US_001057
Page 1 of 2
POLICE LABORATORY FORM 01 (REVISION # 16-01, DATE EFFECTIVE: 05/02/16, PAGE 1 OF 1, ISSUING AUTHORITY: DIRECTOR/DEPUTY DIRECTOR)
 Case 1:18-cr-00779-ER Document 52-2 Filed 12/04/19 Page 4 of 4
LABORATORY REPORT

NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT LABORATORY # 2018-044759

POLICE LABORATORY LABORATORY REPORT # 1
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ANALYSIS SECTION COMPLAINT #
INVOICE # 1001094222

INVOICED BY: DT3 GARY PEREZ Tax#:946105 Command: NARC DATE SUBMITTED: 06/02/2018
BORO MN NORTH
PCT. OF INVOICE: HOUSING PSA 6 DATE ASSIGNED: 06/02/2018
DEFENDANT(S): AGE: DATE PREPARED: 06/05/2018

Unit/Item # Item # Methods Used

1 1 Color Test, Macroscopic Examination, Microscopic
Examination
2.1-2.3 2A Color Test, GC/MS
2.4-2.13 2A GC/MS
2.14-2.59 2B N/A
3.1-3.3 3A Color Test, Macroscopic Examination, Microscopic
Examination
3.4-3.8 3B N/A
4 4 N/A

THIS REPORT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE ENTIRE CASE FILE. THE CASE FILE MAY BE COMPRISED OF WORKSHEETS, IMAGES, ANALYTICAL DATA AND OTHER DOCUMENTS.
THE DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT CAN BE LOCATED AT THE NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES WEBSITE:
HTTP://WWW.CRIMINALJUSTICE.NY.GOV/FORENSIC/LABREPORTSTANDARDS.HTM
THE RESULTS ARE THE OPINIONS / INTERPRETATIONS / CONCLUSIONS OF THE UNDERSIGNED.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I TESTED/EXAMINED/ANALYZED THE ABOVE DESCRIBED ITEM(S) AND THAT THIS REPORT IS AN ORIGINAL REPORT MADE BY ME. FALSE STATEMENTS
MADE HEREIN ARE PUNISHABLE AS A CLASS “A” MISDEMEANOR PURSUANT TO SECTION 210.45 OF THE NEW YORK STATE PENAL LAW .

CRIM IB Ashley Murphy 06/05/2018 06/05/2018

RANK/TITLE ANALYST NAME ANALYST SIGNATURE TAX # DATE PREPARED DATE ISSUED
US_001058
Page 2 of 2
POLICE LABORATORY FORM 01 (REVISION # 16-01, DATE EFFECTIVE: 05/02/16, PAGE 1 OF 1, ISSUING AUTHORITY: DIRECTOR/DEPUTY DIRECTOR)
Case 1:18-cr-00779-ER Document 52-3 Filed 12/04/19 Page 1 of 1