Memorandum Opinion and Order — United States v. Sutton et al. (Dkt. 257, S.D. W. Va.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia · No. 2:24-cr-00192 · Doc. 257 · 2025-06-16 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA 
 
 
 
CHARLESTON DIVISION 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 2:24-cr-00192-01 
 
KISHA SUTTON, 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
 
 
The Court has reviewed the Defendant’s Objections to Magistrate’s Order Denying 
Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Venue (Document 204), the Government’s Response 
in Opposition to Defendant’s Objections to Magistrate’s Order Denying Defendant’s Motions to 
Dismiss for Lack of Venue (Document 216), and the Defendant Kisha Sutton’s Reply to Response 
in Opposition (ECF 216) (Document 220). 
Pursuant to the standard Order of Reference (Document 25) entered in this matter, the 
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count One for Lack of Venue (Document 184), the Defendant’s 
Motion to Dismiss Count Two for Lack of Venue (Document 185), the Defendant’s Motion to 
Dismiss Count Three for Lack of Venue (Document 186), the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count 
Four for Lack of Venue (Document 187), the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count Five for Lack 
of Venue (Document 188), the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count Six for Lack of Venue 
(Document 189), the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count Seven for Lack of Venue (Document 
190), the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count Eight for Lack of Venue (Document 191), the 
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 257     Filed 06/16/25     Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1280

2 
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count Nine for Lack of Venue (Document 192), and the 
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count Ten for Lack of Venue (Document 193), were referred to the 
Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge.1  The Government responded to 
the Defendant’s motions in an Omnibus Response in Opposition to Defendant Kisha Sutton’s 
Motions to Dismiss (Document 201).  Judge Aboulhosn held a hearing on the motions.  The 
Defendant conceded at the hearing that venue had been adequately alleged as to Count One of the 
Superseding Indictment.  Following the hearing, Judge Aboulhosn entered an Order (Document 
203) deeming Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count One for Lack of Venue (Document 184) moot 
and denying the remaining motions to dismiss. 
Since Judge Aboulhosn entered his Order (Document 203), and before the Court could rule 
on the Defendant’s objections, the United States brought a Second Superseding Indictment 
(Document 245).  Due to the substantive changes in the charges set forth in the Second 
Superseding Indictment, the Court finds that the Defendant’s pending motions to dismiss and 
objections are moot.  
Wherefore, after thorough review and careful consideration, the Court ORDERS that the  
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count One for Lack of Venue (Document 184), the Defendant’s 
Motion to Dismiss Count Two for Lack of Venue (Document 185), the Defendant’s Motion to 
Dismiss Count Three for Lack of Venue (Document 186), the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count 
Four for Lack of Venue (Document 187), the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count Five for Lack 
of Venue (Document 188), the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count Six for Lack of Venue 
(Document 189), the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count Seven for Lack of Venue (Document 
 
1 In the Defendant’s filings, she repeatedly refers to Judge Aboulhosn as “the Magistrate.”  As the title of United 
States Magistrate Judge suggests, Judge Aboulhosn and other magistrate judges are judges and should be referred to 
by that title. 
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 257     Filed 06/16/25     Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1281

3 
190), the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count Eight for Lack of Venue (Document 191), the 
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count Nine for Lack of Venue (Document 192), the Defendant’s 
Motion to Dismiss Count Ten for Lack of Venue (Document 193) and the Defendant’s Objections 
to Magistrate’s Order Denying Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Venue (Document 
204) be TERMINATED as MOOT.  
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to the Defendant and counsel, 
to the United States Attorney, to the United States Probation Office, and to the Office of the United 
States Marshal. 
ENTER:    June 16, 2025 
 
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 257     Filed 06/16/25     Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1282

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.wvsd.240497.257.0.pdf

Size

177,621 bytes

SHA-256

0b4d366578cd6f3ca482e01cb635d147ee41b522ec933df26d3e35eff38950e2

Our copy

gov.uscourts.wvsd.240497.257.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com