us v. Stoufflet.

Exposure Page 1 of2

Don Samuel

From: Sommerfeld, Lawrence (USAGAN) [Lawrence.Sommerfeld@usdoj.gov]

Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:29 PM
To: Don Samuel
Cc: Chartash, Randy (USAGAN)
Subject: RE: US v. Stoufflet. Exposure

I am under no illusions at this point. And again, I am counting no chickens. Far as the advice your client
received, I understand your laments, but I don't believe you can limit disclosure once you rely on advice of
counsel.

Here are my calculations, which should prelly much be worst case. The FD&CA counts go to USSG s. 2N2.1,
which xrefs 2B1.1 under 2N2.1 (b)(1). (It is fraud under the FD&CA to dispense drugs as a "prescription" when
there is no legal prescription, under the cricumstances we allege in this case.)

2B1.1
(a) base offense level 6
(b){1){M) $50-100MM ($75MM was alleged) +24
(b)(2)(A) mass marketing +2
(b)(8){C) sophisticated means +2

2S1.1 money laundering

(a)(1) use the underlying offense (see calculations above)
(b){2){B) conviction under 18/1956 +2

3B1.1 (a) organizer leader, at least 5 participants +4

Total offense level 40

This does not include other enhancements which may apply, for example, obstruction of justice, nor does it
include any increase in offense level for multiple counts depending on the grouping rules.

Assuming Criminal History Category I, level 40 is 292-365.

Of course, as mentioned earlier, I make no predictions on what J. Cooper might do..

From: Don Samuel [mailto:dfs@gsllaw.com]

Sent: Thursday, July 12, 20073:04 PM
To: Sommerfeld, Lawrence (USAGAN)
Subject: RE: US v. Stoufflet. Exposure

Can you send me a slightly more detailed explanation? What base offense level, etc. I'm not deceptively trying to
get your hopes up (or trying to get you to more seriously count chickens), but I do want to intelligently advise
client on worst case scenario. We are honestly struggling mightily on the ally-dent issue and not trying to
sandbag you. As I am sure you are well aware, there is some really good ally-client stuff and some REALLY BAD
ally·dient stuff and we are simply incapable of making a decision about which way to go, or whether we can move
in that direction without waiving.
dfs

7/12/2007
us v. Stouffiet. Exposure Page 2 of2

From: Sommerfeld, Lawrence (USAGAN) [mailto:Lawrence.Sommerfeld@usdoj.gov]

sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:53 AM
To: Ed Garland; Don Samuel
Cc: Chartash, Randy (USAGAN)
Subject: US v. Stoufflet. Exposure

Gentlemen,

In no way counting chickens here, but just wanted to see if we're on the same page about exposure.

My rough calculation is that if your client goes to trial and is convicted he may be at least in the 292-365 month
range (based on fraud amount of $75MM, mass marketing, sophisticated means, money laundering, and role),
not including any potential adjustment for obstruction. Of course, what Judge Cooper might give him is anyone's
guess.

Would you let me know if we are far apart?

Thanks.
Larry

7/12/2007
 Page 1 of6

Penny Henritze

From: Don Samuel

Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 3:00 PM
To: David B. Levitt; Lawrence.Sommerfeld@usdoj.gov
Cc: Penny Henritze; Dianna Cole
Subject: RE: FW: Goverment Information

Larry and Randy: I will supervise the production to you of all the documents from the lawyers. They
are not currently in a shape that would allow all this to be turned over on a moment's notice. We
have prepared a chronological set of the documents that we intended to use at trial, but they are not
organized according to the author and they are not comprehensive. Rather than producing documents
piecemeal, I would rather assemble a more comprehensive set and produce them at one time. Also, we
have not crossed the t's or dotted the i's on a plea agreement. The financial aspects of the plea are not
simple to resolve. I know that Chris will be delighted to debrief with you (though you will need to
endure hours of tirades about how mad he is at the lawyers to whom he gave a fortune, in return for
which he acquired an indictment). But your patience would be appreciated. We need to complete the
plea agreement details first. When that is done, I will make sure you get every document, as well as
access to Chris for an unlimited amount of time, I will not be in town this weekend. But I will spend all
night Tuesday night at the office and assemble as many of the documents in a meaningful order to
produce them to you.
Don

-----Origina1 Message-----
From: David B. Levitt [mailto:d1evitt@levittllc.com]
Sent: Fri 11/9/20072:27 PM
To: Don Samuel
Cc:
Subject: Re: FW: Goverment Information

Don,

I just received another telephone call from Larry Sommerfeld looking for the documents. He
asked me to e-mail you. He said that he would get these materials "by hook or by crook" " and if
some process is necessary then he will go that route, although he did not think we were in that
posture. He also said that it is time to schedule a de-brief of Chris, because the trial with the
Doctors is looming. This is the first I have heard a debrief.

I am here to suffer the slings and arrows, or anything else you might want me to do.

I am still waiting on the conference call with Chris and the CPA.

David

Don Samuel <dfs@gsllaw.com> wrote:

Here is a copy of the email that I sent to Chris for him to give to the CPA.
dfs

-----Originai Message-----

11/12/2007