SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Rel. No. 46269 / July 26, 2002

Adm. Proc. File No. 3-10392

In the Matter of the Application of

DANIEL RICHARD HOWARD

4 Canal Park #205

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02141

For Review of Disciplinary Action Taken by the

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS, INC.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

ORDER SUSTAINING DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN BY REGISTERED SECURITIES ASSOCIATION

On the basis of the Commission's opinion issued this day, it is

ORDERED that the disciplinary action taken by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. against Daniel Richard Howard, and the Association's assessment of costs, be, and they hereby are, sustained.

By the Commission.

Jonathan G. Katz
Secretary

___________________________

1 Rule 2110 requires the observance of "high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade." Rule 2310 requires that, in recommending the purchase or sale of any security to a customer, a member must have reasonable grounds for believing that the recommendation is suitable for that customer based on the facts, if any, disclosed by the customer as to his other securities holdings and his financial situation and needs.
2 The NASD also assessed costs.
3 Howard claims that the NASD "failed to provide proof" of Meeker's demise. Meeker's widow testified to her husband's death. If Howard had any evidence to the contrary, the burden was on him to produce it. See Ronald Earl Smits, 50 S.E.C. 1020, 1024 (1992).
4 The securities were Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc., Adaptive Solutions, Inc., Community Medical Transportation, Inc., Magna Lab Class A, Inc., Nashville Country Club, Inc., Excel Technologies, Inc., American Materials & Tech Corp., and Dynagen, Inc.
5 At its height, Meeker's account had $128,606.34 in total assets.
6 The record contains three Meeker new account applications, dated from May 1994 to October 1995, at three different brokerage firms. Meeker's reported annual income on those forms ranges from less than $15,000 to between $50,000 and $100,000. His reported net worth ranges from between $50,000 and $100,000 to more than $700,000. Meeker's widow, who under the terms of a pre-nuptial agreement did not inherit anything from Meeker's estate, expressed the belief that Meeker had liquid assets of "less than $350,000." An NASD investigator testified that Meeker "possibly had net worth of less than or around $150,000."
7 See, e.g., John M. Reynolds, 50 S.E.C. 805, 809 (1992).
8 Howard further stated: "If I had to do it over again, . . . I would not do it, period. . . . I would not handle [Meeker's] account the way it was handled."
9 See Rafael Pinchas, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 41816 (Sept. 1, 1999), 70 SEC Docket 1516, 1526-1527; David A. Gingras, 50 S.E.C. 1286, 1289 n.4 (1992).
10 Rafael Pinchas, supra, 70 SEC Docket at 1521; John M. Reynolds, supra, 50 S.E.C. at 806.
11 Mihara v. Dean Witter & Co., 619 F.2d 814, 821 (9th Cir. 1980); Rafael Pinchas, supra, 70 SEC Docket at 1524-1525; Peter C. Bucchieri, 52 S.E.C 800, 805 (1996).
12 For example, Meeker purchased 1,000 shares of Magna Lab Class A, Inc. ("Magna") on March 5, 1996, and an additional 1,000 shares on March 14. He sold all of these shares on March 27. On June 17, he purchased 1,700 shares of Magna, and an additional 3,300 shares on June 27. On July 22, he sold 2,500 shares of Magna.
13 Rafael Pinchas, supra, 70 SEC Docket at 1523.
14 Thomas R. Alton, 52 S.E.C. 380, 382 (1995), aff'd, 105 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 1996) (Table).
15 Howard claims that an NASD attorney told him that his case had been closed. A letter in the record from the attorney's counsel states that the attorney "is certain that he would not have represented that the case was closed, as it was not."
16 Given the important function served by the information made available through Form U-4, we consider the sanctions imposed here to be unduly lenient.
17 Howard also claims, somewhat inconsistently, that the NASD sent him a letter announcing its final decision before the hearing was completed. There is no evidence in the record that any such letter was ever sent.
18 See Larry Ira Klein, 52 S.E.C. 1030, 1038 (1996), and the cases cited in note 31 of that opinion.
19 See U.S. Associates, Inc., 51 S.E.C. 805, 812 (1993), and the cases cited in note 24 of that opinion.
20 Howard also suggests that the attorney is not licensed in any jurisdiction. The attorney denied this charge. In any event, whether or not the attorney was licensed has no bearing on the validity of these proceedings, and is irrelevant to our determination of the issues before us.
21 Howard also claims that the attorney uttered other insults and threats. However, there is no support in the record for this claim.
22 Rule 8210 of the NASD's Code of Procedure authorized the NASD to obtain the requested information.
23 The record does not indicate whether Howard subsequently complied with the NASD's request.
24 Howard attacks the credibility of Stuart Juckett, Meeker's stepson, asserting that the NASD used Juckett as a "character witness." However, like Nestor, Juckett did not testify at the NASD hearing.
25 See United States v. Huff, 959 F.2d 731, 735 (8th Cir. 1992); Barry C. Wilson, 52 S.E.C. 1070, 1074 (1996).
26 Rule 9342 provides that a party who requests oral argument but fails to appear after being duly notified is deemed to have waived any opportunity for oral argument.
27 NAC review proceedings are governed primarily by the 9300 Series of Code rules. However, Rule 9110 of the Code provides that the Rule 9100 Series is of general applicability to all Rule 9000 Series proceedings unless a rule specifically provides otherwise.
28 The NASD seeks to adduce as additional evidence a Federal Express receipt which shows that, on April 25, 2000, one L. Green signed for the notice sent to Howard to remind him of the argument. Howard opposes the admission of this document. We need not reach this issue. Its resolution is unnecessary to our determination of Howard's claim that he was denied due process.
29 See 17 C.F.R. §§ 200.80 and 200.80a.
30 Howard requests that we investigate various matters, obtain documents from the NASD, and seek confirmation from the NASD's prosecuting attorney of statements made by Howard in his briefs. We deny all of these requests.
31 We have considered all of the arguments advanced by the parties. We reject or sustain them to the extent that they are inconsistent or in accord with the views expressed herein.