• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIAATLANTA DIVISIONUNITED STATES OF AMERICA::CRIMINAL CASE NOS.v. ::1:08-CR-082-1-CCCHRISTOPHER STOUFFLET: 1:06-CR-337-1-CC
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’SMOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA
COMES NOW the United States of America, by its counsel, David E. Nahmias,United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, and Randy S. Chartash,and Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, Assistant United States Attorneys, and files thisResponse to Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea.
I.Background
Over a year ago, on or about March 4, 2008, the Defendant pled guilty tocriminal information number 1:08-CR-082-1-CC, admitting under oath before thisCourt that he committed every element of the charged offenses, and, among otherthings, that he entered into the plea voluntarily, without threat, and of his own freewill. (Tr. of Guilty Plea Proceedings [Docs 12, 16] (“Tr.”), at 16-17, 21, 24, 29-30.)In summary, Defendant Christopher Stoufflet admitted that he was the majorityowner and operator of an illegal business which distributed vast amounts of controlled
Case 1:08-cr-00082-CC Document 19 Filed 03/20/2009 Page 1 of 29
 
2substances throughout the United States to individuals sight unseen. (Criminalinformation [Doc 1], Guilty Plea and Plea Agreement [Doc 5] at 1-2 ¶ 1, Tr. 25-30;PSR ¶¶ 11-36.) Defendant instructed the design of a website where controlledsubstances and other prescription drugs could be ordered by members of the public,and which would provide legal cover for customers and the physicians the Defendantpaid to push the pills. (
 Id. See also
, Tr. of Trial Proceedings, March 2008, 1:06-CR-337 [Docs 247-253] (“Trial Tr.”).) Defendant’s website gave customers cover bydistributing the drugs under the DEA number of a physician whom the customer neversaw. (
 Id.
) In turn, Defendant’s website gave physicians cover by having the customerscomplete a bare-bones “medical questionnaire”, and by having customers agree thatthey had read forms which purported to remove liability from Defendant’s businessand the physicians. (
 Id.
) Particularly illustrative of the sham, Defendant’s “medicalquestionnaire” not only suggested the answers customers should provide to receivetheir diet drugs, but even went so far as to permit customers to change theirinformation, such as their height and weight, until they met the qualificationsdisclosed on the questionnaire. (
 Id.
) Unsurprisingly, given the design of his website,Defendant’s customers received well over 95% of the drugs they ordered. (
 Id.
)Defendant disputes none of the essential facts of the case. (Def.’s Mot. to WithdrawGuilty Plea [Doc 16] (“Def. Mot.”) at 7 (“[The defendant] indeed committed all of the
Case 1:08-cr-00082-CC Document 19 Filed 03/20/2009 Page 2 of 29
 
1
Defendant asserts that he was presented with a 72-hour deadline to enter a pleaand thus he was unduly pressured and did not enter his plea voluntarily. (Def. Mot. 4, 8), Tothe contrary, the record shows the Defendant was given months to contemplate his decision.Indeed, Defendant’s own exhibits show that the Defendant discussed the plea deal inconsultation with his attorneys over a month prior to the March 4, 2008 hearing. (
See
correspondence dated February 2, 3, and 6, 2008, including reference to “multiple discussionsregarding [Defendant] entering a plea”.) Like a number of the assertions made by the Defendant,his claim that he was given a 72-hour ultimatum is false and grossly misleading, in a calculatedeffort to attempt to create an issue where none exists. Moreover, especially when trial is set tocommence in less than a week, there is nothing improper about providing a defendant severaldays before withdrawing the terms a negotiated plea.
See also
,
infra
, at 9 n.2.
3acts that the government alleges he did and accepts full responsibility for thoseactions.”); Tr. 29-30; PSR ¶¶ 11-17.)Having waited until mere days before trial was scheduled to commence onMarch 10, 2008, Stoufflet was the last of the three charged principals of the criminaloperation to plead guilty. Despite the Defendant’s having the essential terms of theplea for several months, if not the better part of a year (
See
attached correspondence,dated June 28, 2007, November 19, 2007, and November 26, 2007.
See also
, Exs. toDef. Mot. (correspondence from Defendant to defense counsel admitting severaldiscussions regarding the plea deal prior to February 2, 2008)), and despite theDefendant’s waiting until days before trial to plead, the United States extended afavorable offer that included the opportunity for the Defendant to receive full creditfor acceptance of responsibility and the potential for a low-end sentencerecommendation. (Guilty Plea and Plea Agreement [Doc 5], at 5-6 ¶ 7, 13-14 ¶14(c).)
1
Case 1:08-cr-00082-CC Document 19 Filed 03/20/2009 Page 3 of 29
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...