Court filing
Motion to Dismiss Count One for Lack of Venue as to Kisha Sutton — United States v. Sutton et al. (Dkt. 184, S.D. W. Va.)
Summary
Kisha Sutton's motion to dismiss Count One of the superseding indictment for lack of venue in United States v. Sutton, Case No. 2:24-cr-00192, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, filed 05/08/25 as Document 184. Count One charges her with conspiracy to commit bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. §1349 from April, 2021 until July, 2021, alleging she prepared and submitted PPP loan applications containing false information for acquaintances and was paid up to 25 percent of the funded amounts. Through counsel Connor Robertson, she argues the indictment never says where any act in the conspiracy took place, and that residence of some co-conspirators in West Virginia does not establish venue there. She asks the court to dismiss Count One. These are the defendant's arguments.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Filed May 8, 2025 in United States v. Sutton et al.; one of 235 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2025-05-08 |
Cite this document
“Motion to Dismiss Count One for Lack of Venue as to Kisha Sutton — United States v. Sutton et al. (Dkt. 184, S.D. W. Va.).”
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, No. 2:24-cr-00192, Doc. 184, filed 2025-05-08. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-kisha-sutton-wvsd-240497/2025-05-08-gov-uscourts-wvsd-240497-184-0-doc-184/
, SHA-256 37db93f19ffbf01bf7175aa45b40d050ea2e4f6b4ab94957a4befebd4011cf10.Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF, V. CASE NO.: 2:24-cr-00192 KISHA SUTTON, DEFENDANT. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT ONE FOR LACK OF VENUE Now comes the Defendant, Kisha Sutton, by and through counsel, Connor Robertson, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court to Dismiss Count One of the Defendant’sSupersedingIndictment,chargingtheDefendantConspiracytocommit“Bank Fraud” in violation of Title 18U.S.C.§1349astheGovernmentcannotestablishVenuein the Southern District of West Virginia. In support thereof, the Defendant states as follows: Count One This is a fraudulent scheme prosecution with a very simple theory: Kisha Sutton prepared and submitted PPP Loan applications containing false information of her acquaintances in order to receive money from a bank or otherentitieswhichqualifyas financial institutions under federal law. In Count One of the Superseding Indictment the GovernmenthasallegedthatMs.Sutton,fromApril,2021andcontinuinguntilJuly,2021, conspiredwithSHAMISEWRIGHT,CYLENASUTTON,RAHMELMEEKS,WILLIAMPOWELL, DAMISHA BROWN, JASMINE SPENCER, AND LYDIA SPENCER to knowingly and Case 2:24-cr-00192 Document 184 Filed 05/08/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 971 intentionally commit bank fraud. SeeSup.Indictment,para.20.Theactsoftheconspiracy are set forth in paragraphs 22 - 28 as summarized as follows: 1. Kisha SuttoncausedthecreationandsubmissionofPPPLoanApplicationsonthe others behalf with their authorizations in exchange for payment from the fraudulent PPP loan proceeds.Id. at 22. 2. AfterthePPPloanswerefunded,theotherspaidKishaSuttonupto25percentof the total funded amount of the PPP loans forherassistance.Theco-conspirators kept the remaining payments.Id. at 26. Importantly, the Indictment fails to indicate where these acts occurred within those paragraphs. In paragraphs 8 through 18, the Superceding Indictment identifies each co-conspirator, their residence, and how each individual participated in the alleged conspiracy; however, none of these paragraphs set forth where eachindividualacttook place. These paragraphs fail toidentifywhereeachpartywaswhentheyallegedlyeither authorized Ms. Sutton to file fraudulent PPP loans with their individual information or ultimately received funding. Paragraph 16-17 simply identifies the Financial Institution locations. Paragraph20simplyoutlinestheformalityofthecharge,butdoesnothingtospeak of what acts weretakenbytheparties.Becauseofthis,theIndictmentisConstitutionally deficient. Law 18 U.S.C. §1349 is a general conspiracy statute. This means that to prove the conspiracy,theGovernmentdoesnothavetoshowan“overtact”wastaken;however,for venue purposes, the Indictmentmustallegesufficientinformationtoascertainthevenue Case 2:24-cr-00192 Document 184 Filed 05/08/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 972 intheSouthernDistrictofWestVirginia.“Toestablishvenueforwirefraudconspiracy,the government must showthat“thedefendantcommittedanovertactinfurtheranceofthe charged conspiracy inside the appropriate judicial district.”UnitedStatesv.Day,700F.3d 713, 727 (4th Cir. 2012). “When determining venue, a coconspirator’s acts may be attributed to all other coconspirators.” UnitedStatesv.Al-Talib,55F.3d923,928-29(4th Cir. 1995). Argument ThereissimplynoallegationwithintheIndictmentthatindicateswhereanyspecific overt act took place that would give the Southern District of West Virginia venue to prosecutethismatter.Atbest,theIndictmentstatesthatsomeoftheco-conspiratorswere residents of West Virginia; however, the Indictment (and for that matter, the discovery) does not provide any indication that any of Ms. Sutton’s alleged co-conspirators shared their personal information with Ms. Sutton while they were in West Virginia. For that matter, the Indictment simply says that the co-defendant’s authorized Ms. Sutton to use their information. The question remains: where were they when they authorized this informationtobeused.TheIndictmentcertainlydoesnotstatethis.TheIndictmentdoes not indicate where the kickbackpaymentswereinitiated,authorizedortheserversfrom whichtheyprocessed.Withoutthisinformation,Ms.Suttoncannotdeterminewhetherthe venueisappropriate,andforthosereasons,theindictmentisconstitutionallydefective.At best, the evidence shows that Ms. Sutton, via a New Jersey IP address, caused the submission of fraudulent PPP Loan applications. However, again, there is no evidence suggesting where the co-conspirators participated in the scheme to defraud. Case 2:24-cr-00192 Document 184 Filed 05/08/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 973 Conclusion WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests the Court enter and Order dismissing Count One for lack of venue and for other such relief as is necessary and proper. Respectfully submitted, By Counsel S://Connor D. Robertson________ Connor Robertson (11460) ROBERTSON LAW PLLC 2939 Virginia Avenue, Suite 2010 Hurricane, WV 25526 (304) 557-1601 cdr@croblaw.com Case 2:24-cr-00192 Document 184 Filed 05/08/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 974 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF, V. CASE NO.: 2:24-CR-000192-01 KISHA SUTTON, DEFENDANT. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Connor Robertson, certify that on the 8th day of May, 2025, a copy of the foregoing motion was served on theUnitedStatesbyECF,toJonathanStorage,Assistant United States Attorney to the following: Jonathan Storage Assistant United States Attorney Jonathan.Storage@usdoj.gov S:// Connor D. Robertson Connor Robertson (11460) ROBERTSON LAW PLLC 2939 Virginia Avenue, Suite 2010 Hurricane, WV 25526 (304) 557-1601 CDR@CROBLAW.COM Case 2:24-cr-00192 Document 184 Filed 05/08/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 975
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.wvsd.240497.184.0.pdf
- Size
- 90,613 bytes
- SHA-256
- 37db93f19ffbf01bf7175aa45b40d050ea2e4f6b4ab94957a4befebd4011cf10
- Original
- PACER (login required)