U.S. Department of Justice

United States Attorney

Southern District of New York

The Silvio J. Mollo Building

One Saint Andrew’s Plaza

New York, New York 10007

November 1, 2007

BY HAND AND ECF

Honorable William H. Pauley III

United States District Judge

Southern District of New York

500 Pearl Street, Room 2210

New York, New York 10007

Re: United States v. Richard Lord,

07 Cr. 554 (WHP)

Dear Judge Pauley:

The Government respectfully submits this letter in advance of the sentencing in

this case, scheduled for Friday, November 2, at 3:30, and in opposition to the defendant’s

sentencing submission. For the reasons set forth below, the Government submits that a sentence

within the range set forth in the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) of 18 to

24 months’ imprisonment is a reasonable one that is no greater than necessary, and should be

imposed here.

On March 21, 2007, Lord was arrested inside 385 Edgecomb Avenue, and he was

charged in a complaint with distributing and possessing with intent to distribute approximately

170 grams of cocaine. Just prior to his arrest, Lord was approached by a law enforcement officer

who asked Lord about the bulge in Lord’s front right pant pocket, to which Lord responded, “I

found it.” When the law enforcement officer again asked Lord what the item in his pocket was,

Lord said, “I don’t know, I found it.” Complaint at ¶ 4. Thereafter, the law enforcement officer

recovered what was later determined to be approximately 156 grams of cocaine in Lord’s pocket.

On June 27, 2007, Lord pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to distributing

and possessing with intent to distribute mixtures and substances containing cocaine, in violation

of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 812, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)©. Lord admitted during

his plea allocution that on March 21, 2007, he possessed cocaine, and that this was cocaine that

he intended to give or sell to others. He admitted that he knew that what he had done was

unlawful. 

As set forth in the plea agreement between Lord and the Government, the parties

agree that the applicable Guidelines range is 18 to 24 months’ imprisonment. This is based on

an offense level of 18 (because the offense involved more than 100 grams but less than 200

Case 1:07-cr-00554-WHP Document 18 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 1 of 3
2

grams of cocaine, minus three points for acceptance of responsibility); and a Criminal History

Category of I. Lord has asked for a non-incarceratory sentence of three years’ probation and a

$4,000 fine.

The Government submits that a sentence within the Guidelines range of 18 to 24

months is reasonable and should be imposed in this case. Lord engaged in serious criminal

conduct – he possessed and intended to distribute 156 grams of cocaine. This is a significant

amount of drugs that he possessed at one time. 

In addition, the Guidelines range already takes into account certain factors upon

which Lord bases his request for a below-Guidelines sentence. For example, Lord points to his

lack of criminal convictions, but this has already been taken into account. Lord’s Guidelines

range is based on a Criminal History Category of one, placing him in the lowest range for his

offense conduct level. Indeed, it is noteworthy that Lord’s lack of criminal history points

rendered him eligible for safety-valve relief, which would have lowered Lord’s offense level an

additional two points. In order to qualify for this relief, however, Lord would have been

required to “truthfully provide[ ] to the Government all information and evidence . . . concerning

the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or

plan.” U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5). Lord chose not to do so, lending credibility to the inference that

Lord’s truthful disclosure of any criminal conduct that was part of the same common scheme or

plan as that of the instant conviction would have exposed him to a significantly higher offense

level than 15. This also calls into question the reliability of Lord’s statement to Probation that

his conduct on March 21, 2007 “was the first time that he had ever attempted to sell cocaine.” 

PSR ¶ 11.

Lord also argues that he and his wife are gainfully employed and because he

works nights while his wife works days, they do not need to pay for child-care expenses for their

ten-year-old daughter. This may certainly be the case, but Lord’s only verified employment is

from April 2007 to the present – notably, employment that he procured after he was arrested and

released on bail. PSR ¶ 47. Other than this recent employment, Lord claims that he was a selfemployed carpenter for the past ten years, but there is no verification of this or indication that

any income he earned from this sort of work was included on his family’s income tax filings. 

Indeed, when Lord’s wife was interviewed in order to determine whether she was a suitable bond

co-signer for Lord, she indicated that Lord had not worked for five years. Finally, to the extent

Lord’s incarceration would necessitate additional child-care expenses for Lord’s family, this is

not atypical or unusual, and does not warrant a non-Guidelines sentence.

Case 1:07-cr-00554-WHP Document 18 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 2 of 3
3

Finally, a sentence within the Guidelines range would also help to further the

need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have

been found guilty of similar conduct. A sentence within the Guidelines range would help to

ensure that Lord receives a sentence consistent with that of other defendants who have engaged

in similar drug trafficking conduct and with similar criminal history. 

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. 

Very truly yours,

MICHAEL J. GARCIA

United States Attorney

Southern District of New York

By: _____/s/ Jillian Berman______________

Jillian B. Berman

Assistant United States Attorney

(212) 637-2197

cc: Ed Wilford, Esq.

(By Facsimile)

Case 1:07-cr-00554-WHP Document 18 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 3 of 3