Score:   1
Docket Number:   D-CT  3:19-cr-00014
Case Name:   USA v. Pham et al
  Press Releases:
John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that SAMUEL COPENHAVER, 48, of Grand Rapids, Michigan, pleaded guilty today before U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer in New Haven to conspiracy and wire fraud offenses for his role in defrauding the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”).  The scheme involved coaching prospective and current federal inmates who would not otherwise require substance abuse treatment how to lie to gain admission into a BOP program that, if completed successfully, would result in a shortened prison term.

According to court documents and statements made in court, the Residential Drug Abuse Program (“RDAP”) is a 500-hour substance abuse treatment program that is administered by the BOP.  In order to gain admission to the RDAP, a federal inmate must meet certain criteria, including having a diagnosable and verifiable drug or alcohol abuse disorder.  By successfully completing the RDAP, an inmate can qualify for up to 12 months in early release from custody.

Copenhaver was employed by Michigan-based RDAP Law Consultants, LLC, where he solicited and engaged prospective clients of the company.  In that capacity, Copenhaver regularly contacted federal defendants and inmates with offers to assist, for a fee, those defendants and inmates in applying and qualifying for admission to the RDAP.  Although Copenhaver knew that many of the company’s clients did not abuse alcohol or drugs and were ineligible for the RDAP, he coached them how to feign or exaggerate a drug or alcohol disorder, and to make false statements to the BOP so they could gain admission to the RDAP.

Copenhaver was arrested on January 23, 2019.

Judge Meyer scheduled sentencing for January 16, 2020, at which time Copenhaver faces a maximum term of imprisonment of 25 years.

Copenhaver is released on a $100,000 bond pending sentencing.

This investigation is being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation Division.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan N. Francis and Trial Attorney Avi Perry of the Department of Justice’s Fraud Section, who has been designated as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney for this matter.

U.S. Attorney Durham thanked the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Southern District of West Virginia and the Western District of Michigan for their assistance in this matter.

John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, Brian C. Turner, Special Agent in Charge of the New Haven Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Kristina O’Connell, Special Agent in Charge of the Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation in New England, today announced that a federal grand jury in New Haven has returned a nine-count indictment charging three Michigan residents with conspiracy and fraud charges stemming from an alleged scheme to qualify prospective and current federal inmates who do not require substance abuse treatment for admission into a Federal Bureau of Prisons program that, if completed successfully, will result in a shortened prison term.

Charged in the indictment, which was returned on January 15, 2019, are TONY TUAN PHAM, also known as “Anh Nguyen,” 49, of Grand Rapids, Michigan; SAMUEL COPENHAVER, 47, of Grand Rapids, Michigan, and CONSTANCE MOERLAND, 33, of Hudsonville, Michigan.  The three defendants were arrested on January 23.

According to the indictment, the Residential Drug Abuse Program (“RDAP”) is a 500-hour substance abuse treatment program that is administered by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”).  In order to gain admission to the RDAP, a federal inmate must meet certain criteria, including having a diagnosable and verifiable drug or alcohol abuse disorder.  By successfully completing the RDAP, an inmate can qualify for up to 12 months in early release from custody.

The indictment alleges that Pham, Copenhaver and Moerland were managing partners of Michigan-based RDAP Law Consultants, LLC.  The defendants solicited prospective and current federal inmates, including individuals in Connecticut, through telephone calls and emails with offers of assistance in applying to, and qualifying for, the RDAP.  For a fee, the defendants coached and advised prospective and current inmates on how to gain admission to the RDAP by lying to the BOP about the existence, duration and extent of a qualifying substance abuse disorder.

“The indictment alleges that these defendants profited by coaching federal inmates and prospective inmates to lie about substance abuse issues in order to be released from prison well before each sentencing judge intended,” said U.S. Attorney Durham.  “This is a scheme that defrauds the public by taking advantage of an important Bureau of Prisons treatment program that exists to help rehabilitate inmates with real addiction problems in order to prepare them for life after prison.”

“This indictment illustrates the depths to which federal investigators will go to uncover fraud of all types,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Turner.  “The alleged fraudulent methods used to defraud government programs will not be tolerated and will continue to be vigorously investigated.”

“In this alleged RDAP scheme, the fraudsters not only undermined the authority of the judicial system to administer fair and impactful sentences, but they diverted vital substance abuse treatment from inmates who really needed it,” said IRS-CI Special Agent in Charge O’Connell.  “IRS-CI’s tracing of fees allowed investigators to uncover the breadth of this alleged fraud and we are proud of our role in this collaborative law enforcement effort.”

The indictment charges Pham, Copenhaver and Moerland with one count of conspiracy, an offense that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of five years.  The indictment also charges Pham and Copenhaver with multiple counts of wire fraud, and offense that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years on each count.

U.S. Attorney Durham stressed that an indictment is not evidence of guilt.  Charges are only allegations, and each defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

This investigation is being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation Division.  The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Avi Perry of the Department of Justice’s Fraud Section, who has been designated as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney for this matter.  The prosecution in the District of Connecticut was facilitated by significant assistance from Assistant U.S. Attorney Meredith George Thomas of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of West Virginia.

U.S. Attorney Durham thanked the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Michigan for its assistance in this matter.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14qvEbndfH0SaQ9uJUxQFTS_GRl2fc-cPfVe20pnWXEY
  Last Updated: 2024-04-11 10:43:12 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E