Motion in Limine as to Kisha Sutton to Exclude Evidence — United States v. Sutton et al. (Dkt. 263, S.D. W. Va.)

Summary

Kisha Sutton's motion in limine to exclude evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts under Rules 403 and 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence in United States v. Sutton, Case No. 2:24-cr-00192, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, filed 06/23/25 as Document 263. It states the earlier indictments charged her with conspiracy to commit bank fraud and nine counts of aiding and abetting bank fraud over PPP loan applications, but the Second Superseding Indictment now charges only one count of aiding and abetting bank fraud and one count of money laundering, both with Shamise Wright. The motion says the government still intends to offer testimony and loan documents of the removed co-defendants under Rule 404(b). She argues the government's 404(b) notice is insufficient and asks the court to bar that evidence. 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

Record facts

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 KISHA SUTTON’S MOTION​​IN LIMINE​​TO EXCLUDE​
​EVIDENCE OF OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS PURSUANT TO​
​RULES 4O3 AND 404(b) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE​
​NOW​ ​COMES​ ​the​ ​Defendant,​ ​Kisha​ ​Sutton,​ ​by​ ​and​ ​through​ ​counsel,​ ​Connor​
​Robertson,​​pursuant​​to​​Rules​​403​​and​​404(b)​​of​​the​​Federal​​Rules​​of​​Evidence​​to​​prevent​
​the​ ​Government​ ​from​ ​introducing,​ ​during​ ​its​ ​case​ ​in​​chief,​​any​​evidence​​of​​other​​crimes,​
​wrongs,​ ​or​ ​other​ ​acts​ ​allegedly​ ​committed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Defendant.​ ​In​ ​support​ ​thereof,​ ​the​
​Defendant states as follows:​
​INTRODUCTION​
​This​​is​​a​​fraudulent​​scheme​​prosecution​​whereby​​the​​Indictment​​alleges​​that​​Kisha​
​Sutton​ ​prepared​ ​and​ ​submitted​ ​PPP​ ​Loan​ ​applications​ ​containing​ ​false​ ​personal​
​information​​of​​her​​friends​​and​​family.​​The​​loan​​applications​​were​​ultimately​​approved​​and​
​money​ ​was​ ​deposited​ ​into​ ​the​ ​bank​ ​accounts​ ​of​ ​her​ ​friends​ ​and​ ​relatives.​ ​For​
​consideration​ ​of​ ​Ms.​ ​Sutton’s​ ​work,​ ​her​ ​friends​ ​and​ ​relatives​ ​sent​ ​a​ ​portion​ ​of​ ​the​
​proceeds back to Ms. Sutton.​
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 263     Filed 06/23/25     Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1299

​There​ ​have​ ​been​ ​three​ ​grand​ ​jury​ ​presentations​ ​in​ ​this​ ​case,​ ​each​ ​leading​ ​to​ ​an​
​Indictment.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​Indictment​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Superseding​ ​Indictment,​ ​Ms.​ ​Sutton​ ​was​ ​charged​
​with​ ​one​ ​count​ ​of​ ​Conspiracy​ ​to​ ​commit​ ​Bank​ ​Fraud​ ​and​​nine​​separate​​counts​​of​​aiding​
​and​ ​abetting​ ​Bank​ ​Fraud​ ​(one​ ​count​ ​for​ ​each​ ​loan​ ​application​ ​she​ ​submitted​ ​on​ ​her​
​friends’​​behalf).​​However,​​the​​Government​​dramatically​​changed​​and​​reduced​​the​​scope​​of​
​its​ ​case​ ​in​ ​the​ ​most​ ​recent​ ​Second​ ​Superseding​ ​Indictment.​ ​Therein,​ ​Ms.​ ​Sutton​ ​is​ ​now​
​charged​ ​with​ ​one​​count​​of​​aiding​​and​​abetting​​Bank​​Fraud​​with​​Shamise​​Wright​​and​​one​
​count​ ​of​ ​money​ ​laundering​ ​with​ ​Shamise​ ​Wright.​ ​All​ ​other​ ​co-defendants​ ​have​ ​been​
​removed from the Second Superseding Indictment.​
​Now​ ​that​ ​the​ ​other​ ​co-defendants​ ​have​ ​been​ ​removed​ ​from​ ​the​ ​Indictment,​ ​the​
​Government​ ​nonetheless​ ​intends​ ​to​ ​offer​ ​their​ ​testimony​ ​and​ ​various​ ​loan​ ​documents​
​associated​ ​with​ ​each​ ​individual’s​ ​fraudulent​ ​loan​ ​into​ ​evidence​ ​against​ ​Ms.​ ​Sutton​
​pursuant​ ​to​ ​Rule​ ​404(b).​ ​This​ ​Motion​ ​asks​ ​the​ ​Court​ ​to​ ​bar​ ​this​ ​from​ ​happening​ ​for​ ​a​
​variety​​of​​reasons​​set​​forth​​below.​​First,​​the​​Government’s​​404(b)​​Notice​​to​​the​​Defendant​
​is insufficient.​
​404(b) NOTICE​
​Federal​​Rule​​of​​Evidence​​404(b)(1)​​provides​​that​​“[e]vidence​​of​​a​​crime,​​wrong,​​or​
​other​ ​act​ ​is​ ​not​ ​admissible​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​a​ ​person’s​ ​character​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​show​ ​that​ ​on​ ​a​
​particular​ ​occasion​ ​the​ ​person​ ​acted​​in​​accordance​​with​​the​​character.”​​The​​government,​
​therefore,​ ​“may​ ​not​ ​introduce​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​extrinsic​ ​offenses​ ​to​ ​demonstrate​ ​the​
​defendant’s​​propensity​​to​​commit​​unlawful​​acts​​or​​to​​prove​​that​​the​​defendant​​committed​
​the​​crime​​with​​which​​he​​is​​presently​​charged.”​​United​​States​​v.​​Powers​,​​59​​F.3d​​1460,​​1464​
​(4th​ ​Cir.​ ​1995)​ ​(internal​ ​quotation​ ​marks​​omitted).​​Although​​“other​​acts”​​evidence​​is​​not​
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 263     Filed 06/23/25     Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 1300

​admissible​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​criminal​ ​propensity,​ ​such​ ​evidence​ ​“may​ ​be​ ​admissible​ ​for​ ​another​
​purpose,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​proving​ ​motive,​ ​opportunity,​ ​intent,​ ​preparation,​ ​knowledge,​ ​identity,​
​absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2).​
​Because​ ​it​ ​is​ ​the​ ​Government’s​​burden​​to​​establish​​that​​evidence​​of​​a​​defendant’s​
​prior​​acts​​is​​admissible​​for​​a​​proper​​purpose,​​the​​Government​​must​​“identify​​each​​proper​
​purpose​ ​for​ ​which​ ​it​​will​​use​​the​​other​​acts​​evidence​​and​​explain​​how​​that​​evidence​​“fits​
​into​ ​a​ ​chain​ ​of​​inferences​​-​​a​​chain​​that​​connects​​the​​evidence​​to​​[each]​​proper​​purpose,​
​no​ ​link​ ​of​ ​which​​is​​a​​forbidden​​propensity​​inference."​​United​​States​​v.​​Harold​​Hall,​​Jr.​,​​858​
​F.3d​ ​254​ ​(4th​ ​Cir.​ ​2017)​ ​quoting​ ​United​​States​​v.​​Davis,​​726​​F.2d​​434,​​442​​(3d​​Cir.​​2013).​
​Rule​ ​404(b)(3)​ ​sets​​out​​the​​three​​requirements​​of​​the​​Government’s​​obligation​​of​​Notice​
​as follows:​
​(3)​
​Notice in a Criminal Case. In a criminal case, the prosecutor must:​
​(A)​ ​Provide​​reasonable​​notice​​of​​any​​such​​evidence​​that​​the​​prosecutor​​intends​
​to offer at trial, so that the defendant has a fair opportunity to meet it;​
​(B)​​Articulate​ ​in​ ​the​ ​notice​ ​the​ ​permitted​ ​purpose​ ​for​ ​which​ ​the​ ​prosecutor​
​intends​ ​to​​offer​​the​​evidence​​and​​the​​reasoning​​that​​supports​​the​​purpose;​
​and​
​(C)​​Do​ ​so​ ​in​ ​writing​ ​before​ ​trial​ ​-​ ​or​ ​in​ ​any​ ​form​ ​during​ ​trial​ ​if​ ​the​ ​court,​ ​for​
​good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice.​
​The​ ​notice​ ​requirement​ ​of​ ​Rule​ ​404(b)(3)​ ​is​ ​specific​ ​and​ ​was​ ​put​ ​in​ ​place​ ​to​ ​prevent​
​general​ ​404(b)​ ​disclosures.​ ​The​ ​Committee​ ​Notes​ ​on​ ​Rules​ ​for​ ​the​ ​2011​ ​Amendment​
​highlight the reason the rule was amended to provide for more specific notice by saying:​
​“The​ ​prosecution​ ​must​ ​not​ ​only​ ​identify​ ​the​​evidence​​that​​it​​intends​
​to​ ​offer​ ​pursuant​ ​to​ ​the​ ​rule​ ​but​ ​also​ ​articulate​ ​a​​non-propensity​​purpose​
​for​ ​which​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​is​ ​offered​ ​and​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​for​ ​concluding​ ​that​ ​the​
​evidence​​is​​relevant​​in​​light​​of​​the​​purpose.​​The​​earlier​​requirement​​that​​the​
​prosecution​​provide​​notice​​of​​only​​the​​“general​​nature”​​of​​the​​evidence​​was​
​understood​ ​by​ ​some​ ​courts​ ​to​ ​permit​ ​the​ ​government​​to​​satisfy​​the​​notice​
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 263     Filed 06/23/25     Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 1301

​obligation​ ​without​ ​describing​ ​the​ ​specific​ ​act​ ​that​ ​the​​evidence​​would​​tend​
​to​ ​prove,​ ​and​ ​without​ ​explaining​ ​the​ ​relevance​ ​of​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​for​ ​a​
​non-propensity​ ​purpose.​ ​This​ ​amendment​ ​makes​ ​clear​ ​what​ ​notice​ ​is​
​required.”​
​Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) advisory committee notes (2011).​
​GOVERNMENT’S 404(b) NOTICE INSUFFICIENT​
​The​ ​Government’s​ ​404(b)​ ​notice​ ​is​ ​exactly​ ​the​ ​type​ ​of​ ​generic​ ​catch-all​
​disclosure​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Rule​ ​was​ ​amended​ ​to​ ​prevent.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​Second​ ​Supplemental​
​Response​ ​of​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States​ ​of​ ​America​ ​to​ ​Defendant’s​ ​Standard​ ​Discovery​
​Request​ ​and​ ​Request​ ​of​ ​the​​United​​States​​for​​Reciprocal​​Discovery​​(ECF​​258),​​the​
​Government​​indicates​​its​​intention​​to​​present​​404(b)​​evidence​​against​​Kisha​​Sutton.​
​The Disclosure is as follow:​
​“The​​government​​intends​​to​​present​​evidence​​linking​​defendant​​Kisha​
​Sutton​ ​to​ ​the​ ​PPP​ ​loans​ ​applied​ ​for​ ​and​ ​received​ ​in​ ​the​ ​names​ ​of​ ​Lydia​
​Spencer,​ ​Cylena​ ​Sutton,​ ​Rahmel​ ​Meekins,​ ​William​ ​Powell,​ ​Damisha​ ​Brown,​
​and​​Jasmine​​Spencer.​​The​​evidence​​includes​​internet​​protocol​​addresses​​(“IP​
​Addresses”),​ ​Verizon​ ​subscriber​ ​information,​ ​IRS​ ​Form​ ​1040-Schedule​ ​C,​
​PPP​ ​loan​ ​applications,​ ​Docusign​ ​records,​ ​bank​ ​account​ ​records,​ ​CashApp​
​account records and the like.​
​The​​government​​seeks​​to​​introduce​​such​​evidence​​for​​the​​purpose​​of​
​proving​ ​motive,​ ​opportunity,​ ​intent,​ ​preparation,​ ​plan,​ ​knowledge​ ​identity,​
​absence​ ​of​ ​mistake​ ​and​ ​lack​​of​​accident,​​as​​permitted​​by​​Rule​​404(b)(2)​​of​
​the Federal Rules of Evidence.”​
​This​ ​disclosure​ ​fails​ ​to​ ​“precisely​ ​articulate​ ​the​ ​purpose​ ​of​ ​the​ ​proffered​ ​[404(b)]​
​evidence.”​​United​​States​​v.​​Birch,​​39​​F.3d​​1089,​​1093​​(10th​​Cir.​​1994).​​First,​​this​​disclosure​
​simply​ ​restates​ ​all​ ​of​ ​the​ ​non-propensity​ ​exceptions​ ​in​ ​a​ ​broad​ ​manner.​ ​Second,​ ​the​
​disclosure​​fails​​to​​explain​​the​​inference​​each​​piece​​of​​evidence​​will​​provide​​to​​a​​particular​
​non-propensity purpose.​
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 263     Filed 06/23/25     Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 1302

​This​ ​type​ ​of​ ​broad​ ​disclosure​ ​has​ ​been​ ​ruled​ ​as​ ​inadequate.​ ​In​ ​United​ ​States​ ​v.​
​Kearn​,​ ​863​ ​F.3d​ ​1299​ ​(10th​ ​Cir.​ ​2017),​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​404(b)​ ​Notice​ ​was​ ​very​ ​similar.​
​There​ ​the​ ​government​ ​filed​ ​a​ ​pre-trial​ ​motion​ ​to​ ​introduce​ ​evidence​ ​found​ ​on​ ​the​
​Defendants​​smartphone​​and​​computer​​which​​included​​sexually​​explicit​​images​​of​​minors,​
​nude​​video​​clips,​​and​​search​​terms​​indicating​​an​​interest​​in​​such​​material.​​The​​government​
​sought​ ​to​ ​introduce​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​under​ ​Rule​ ​404(b)​ ​to​ ​show​ ​“the​ ​defendant’s​ ​intent,​
​knowledge,​ ​absence​ ​of​ ​mistake​ ​and​ ​lack​ ​of​​accident.”​​Id.​​The​​Kearn​​Court​​held​​the​​broad​
​statement​​was​​inadequate.​​Id.​​See​​also​​United​​States​​v.​​Birch​,​​39​​F.3d​​1089,​​(10th​​Cir.​​1994)​
​(“In​​this​​case,​​the​​government​​failed​​to​​articulate​​with​​precision​​the​​evidentiary​​purpose​​of​
​the​ ​Rule​ ​404(b)​ ​evidence​ ​it​ ​offered.​ ​Although​ ​the​ ​government​ ​filed​ ​a​ ​pretrial​ ​Notice​ ​of​
​Intent​ ​to​ ​Introduce​ ​Evidence​ ​Pursuant​ ​to​ ​Rule​ ​404(b),​ ​the​ ​Notice​ ​stated​ ​only​ ​that​ ​the​
​evidence’s​ ​purpose​ ​was​ ​to​ ​“prove​ ​the​ ​defendant’s​ ​knowledge,​ ​identity,​ ​and​ ​absence​ ​of​
​mistake.”​ ​The​ ​Notice​ ​does​ ​not​ ​articulate​ ​“the​ ​relevant​​purpose​​and​​specific​​inferences​​to​
​be drawn from . . . [the] evidence of other acts’ offered by the Government.”).​
​A​ ​district​ ​court​ ​must​ ​make​ ​a​ ​threshold​​determination​​that​​the​​offered​​evidence​​is​
​probative​ ​of​ ​a​ ​material​ ​issue​ ​other​ ​than​ ​character​ ​before​ ​admitting​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​under​
​Rule​ ​404(b).​ ​Huddleston​​v.​​Untied​​States,​​485​​U.S.​​681,​​686​​(1998).​​In​​this​​case,​​the​​Court​
​could not do so on the broad disclosure. Thus, any 404(b) evidence should be barred.​
​SUBSTANTIVE 404(b) CHALLENGE​
​Ms.​ ​Sutton​ ​cannot,​ ​at​ ​this​ ​point,​​effectively​​mount​​a​​404(b)​​challenge​​because​​she​
​has​ ​not​ ​been​ ​properly​ ​put​ ​on​ ​notice​ ​of​ ​exactly​ ​what​ ​evidence​ ​is​​being​​offered,​​for​​what​
​purpose,​​and​​how​​it​​relates​​to​​the​​current​​charges.​​“The​​government​​bears​​the​​burden​​of​
​establishing​ ​that​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​a​ ​defendant’s​ ​prior​ ​bad​​acts​​is​​admissible​​for​​a​​proper​
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 263     Filed 06/23/25     Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 1303

​purpose.​​United​​States​​v.​​Harold​​Hall,​​Jr.​,​​858​​F.3d​​254​​(4th​​Cir.​​2017)​​quoting​​United​​States​
​v.​​Youts,​​229​ ​F.3d​ ​1312,​ ​1317​ ​(10th​ ​Cir.​ ​2000).​ ​To​ ​do​​so,​​the​​Government​​must​​meet​​the​
​following criteria set forth in​​United States v. Queen​, 132 F.3d 991 (4th Cir. 1997):​
​1.​ ​“The​ ​evidence​ ​must​​be​​relevant​​to​​an​​issue,​​such​​as​​an​​element​​of​​an​​offense,​​and​
​must not be offered to establish the general character of the defendant.”​
​2.​ ​“The​​act​​must​​be​​necessary​​in​​the​​sense​​that​​it​​is​​probative​​of​​an​​essential​​claim​​or​
​an element of the offense.”​
​3.​ ​“The evidence must be reliable.”​
​4.​ ​“The​​evidence’s​​probative​​value​​must​​not​​be​​substantially​​outweighed​​by​​confusion​
​or​ ​unfair​ ​prejudice​ ​in​ ​the​ ​sense​ ​that​​it​​tends​​to​​subordinate​​reason​​to​​emotion​​in​
​the factfinding process.”​​Id.​
​Ms.​ ​Sutton​ ​can​ ​envision​ ​mounting​ ​multiple​ ​attacks​ ​to​ ​the​ ​currently​ ​proposed​
​evidence​ ​after​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​explains​ ​its​ ​purpose.​ ​However,​ ​without​ ​knowing​ ​how​
​exactly​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​intends​ ​to​ ​link​ ​its​ ​proposed​ ​evidence​ ​to​ ​a​ ​relevant​ ​issue​ ​in​ ​the​
​case,​ ​Ms.​ ​Sutton​ ​is​ ​effectively​ ​prejudiced​ ​by​ ​guessing​ ​how​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​will​​proceed.​
​For​​that​​matter,​​there​​are​​aspects​​of​​this​​case​​that​​Ms.​​Sutton​​may​​not​​necessarily​​dispute​
​and​ ​therefore​ ​404(b)​​evidence​​would​​not​​be​​anything​​other​​than​​propensity​​evidence​​to​
​pile​​on​​to​​an​​issue​​not​​in​​dispute.​​If​​a​​Defendant​​does​​not​​dispute​​an​​issue,​​then​​the​​404(b)​
​evidences​​probative​​value​​decreases​​and​​the​​prejudicial​​value​​increases.​​See​​United​​States​
​v.​ ​Harold​ ​Hall,​ ​Jr.​,​ ​858​ ​F.3d​ ​254​ ​(4th​ ​Cir.​ ​2017)​ ​(“But,​ ​also​ ​like​ ​his​ ​prior​ ​possession​
​conviction,​ ​Defendant’s​ ​prior​ ​convictions​ ​for​ ​possession​ ​with​ ​intent​ ​to​ ​distribute​
​marijuana​ ​are​ ​of​ ​minimal​ ​probative​ ​value​ ​because​ ​Defendant​ ​did​ ​not​ ​contest​ ​his​
​knowledge​ ​of​ ​marijuana​ ​and​ ​because​ ​the​ ​government​ ​did​ ​not​ ​introduce​ ​evidence​
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 263     Filed 06/23/25     Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 1304

​suggesting​​that​​Defendant’s​​knowledge​​of​​marijuana​​would​​have​​permitted​​him​​to​​identify​
​the smell as emanating from the deadbolt-locked bedroom.)​​Id.​
​Despite​ ​Ms.​ ​Sutton’s​ ​disadvantage,​ ​should​ ​the​ ​Court​ ​not​ ​bar​ ​404(b)​ ​evidence​
​outright​​for​​failure​​to​​provide​​proper​​notice,​​or​​allow​​the​​government​​to​​revise​​the​​notice,​
​Ms.​​Sutton​​challenges​​the​​proposed​​404(b)​​evidence​​as​​being​​irrelevant,​​non-probative​​to​
​any​ ​issue​ ​in​ ​the​ ​case,​ ​or​ ​its​​probative​​value​​is​​substantially​​outweighed​​by​​the​​danger​​of​
​unfair​ ​prejudice,​ ​confusing​ ​the​ ​issues,​ ​misleading​ ​the​ ​jury,​ ​undue​ ​delay,​ ​wasting​​time,​​or​
​needlessly​​presenting​​cumulative​​evidence.​​The​​Court​​should​​hold​​a​​404(b)​​hearing​​prior​
​to trial in order to allow Ms. Sutton the opportunity to challenge the evidence properly.​
​CONCLUSION​
​WHEREFORE,​​for​​the​​reasons​​set​​forth​​above,​​Ms.​​Sutton​​respectfully​​requests​​that​
​the​ ​Court​ ​bar​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​from​​presenting​​404(b)​​evidence​​as​​generically​​identified​
​in​ ​its​ ​404(b)​ ​disclosure.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​alternative,​ ​Ms.​ ​Sutton​ ​respectfully​ ​requests​ ​the​ ​Court​
​ORDER​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​to​ ​revise​ ​the​ ​disclosure​ ​to​ ​allow​ ​her​ ​proper​​notice​​of​​what​​she​
​must​ ​defend.​ ​Additionally,​ ​and​ ​most​ ​importantly,​ ​hold​ ​an​ ​evidentiary​ ​404(b)​ ​hearing​ ​on​
​the matter prior to trial so that a full record can be developed.​
​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 263     Filed 06/23/25     Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 1305

​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​ ​23rd​ ​day​ ​of​ ​June,​ ​2025,​ ​a​ ​copy​ ​of​ ​the​
​foregoing​ ​motion​ ​was​ ​served​ ​on​ ​the​​United​​States​​by​​ECF,​​to​​Jonathan​​Storage,​​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 263     Filed 06/23/25     Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 1306

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.wvsd.240497.263.0.pdf

Size

114,367 bytes

SHA-256

f2b3addaab09998a190f9e075c8c41de59ea6232ccfa1895f172afdd7f9a2095

Our copy

gov.uscourts.wvsd.240497.263.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)