Motion to Dismiss Counts One and Two for Lack of Venue — United States v. Sutton et al. (Dkt. 264, S.D. W. Va.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia · No. 2:24-cr-00192 · Doc. 264 · 2025-06-23 · Docket on CourtListener

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​
​COUNTS ONE AND TWO 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’s​ ​Superseding​ ​Indictment,​ ​charging​ ​the​ ​Defendant​ ​with​ ​“Bank​ ​Fraud”​ ​in​
​violation​​of​​Title​​18​​U.S.C.​​§1344(1)​​and​​(2),​​and​​Count​​Two​​charging​​“Money​​Laudering”​
​as​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​cannot​ ​establish​ ​Venue​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Southern​ ​District​ ​of​ ​West​ ​Virginia.​ ​In​
​support thereof, the Defendant states as follows:​
​Count I​
​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​ ​other​​entities​​which​​qualify​​as​
​financial​ ​institutions​ ​under​ ​federal​ ​law.​ ​In​ ​Count​ ​One​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Second​ ​Superseding​
​Indictment​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​has​ ​alleged​ ​that​ ​Ms.​ ​Sutton,​ ​on​ ​April​ ​19,​ ​2021,​ ​“caused​ ​the​
​submission​​of​​a​​PPP​​loan​​application​​and​​a​​Schedule​​C​​to​​Financial​​Institution​​1​​on​​behalf​
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 264     Filed 06/23/25     Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1307

​of​​defendant​​Shamiese​​Wright.”​​See​​Sup.​​Indictment,​​para.​​10.​​The​​application​​falsely​​stated​
​that​​Ms.​​Wright​​was​​a​​sole​​proprietor,​​that​​her​​business​​was​​established​​prior​​to​​January​
​of​​2017,​​and​​had​​an​​income​​of​​more​​than​​$75,000.00​​which​​made​​her​​fictitiously​​eligible​
​for​ ​PPP​ ​loan​ ​relief​ ​during​ ​the​ ​Covid​ ​pandemic.​
​Id.​ ​at​ ​para​ ​11.​ ​Based​ ​on​ ​the​ ​false​
​information​​provided,​​Financial​​Institution​​1​​funded​​the​​loan​​to​​Ms.​​Wright​​for​​$15,625​​on​
​or​​about​​May​​7,​​2021.​​Id.​​at.​​Para​​13.​ ​In​​exchange​​for​​Ms.​​Sutton’s​​efforts,​​the​​Government​
​alleges​​that​​Ms.​​Wright,​​while​​in​​the​​Southern​​District​​of​​West​​Virginia,​​remitted​​$3,000​​of​
​the​​fraudulent​​PPP​​proceeds​​to​​Ms.​​Sutton.​​Id.​​at​​para.​​14.​​Based​​on​​these​​accusations,​​Ms.​
​Sutton​​is​​charged​​with​​“bank​​fraud”​​in​​violation​​of​​18​​U.S.C.​​§​​1344(1)&(2).​​Assuming​​for​
​the​ ​purposes​ ​of​ ​this​ ​Motion​ ​that​ ​the​ ​allegations​ ​of​ ​the​ ​above-captioned​ ​facts​ ​(and​
​Indictment)​ ​are​ ​true,​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​cannot​ ​establish​ ​Venue​​in​​the​​Southern​​District​​of​
​West Virginia.​
​Facts​
​According​​to​​the​​Government,​​Ms.​​Sutton​​caused​​a​​fraudulent​​PPP​​loan​​application​
​and​ ​Schedule​ ​C​ ​tax​ ​forms​ ​to​ ​be​ ​submitted​ ​electronically​​from​​a​​residence​​in​​New​​Jersey​
​City,​​New​​Jersey.​​This​​allegation​​is​​supported​​by​​evidence​​that​​an​​IP​​address​​linked​​to​​Mrs.​
​Sutton’s​ ​name​ ​was​ ​captured​ ​when​ ​the​ ​application​ ​was​ ​submitted​ ​and​ ​received​ ​by​ ​a​
​third-party​ ​vendor​ ​website​ ​called​ ​“Womply”.​ ​Womply​ ​is​ ​not​ ​a​ ​bank​ ​or​ ​a​ ​financial​
​institution​​as​​defined​​by​​federal​​law,​​but​​instead​​was​​a​​financial​​technology​​company​​that​
​acted​​as​​a​​facilitator​​to​​match​​PPP​​applicants​​to​​lenders.​​Based​​on​​information​​and​​belief,​
​Womply had no servers in the Southern District of West Virginia.​
​With​ ​this​ ​particular​ ​PPP​​loan​​application,​​Womply​​electronically​​matched​​a​​willing​
​lender,​​Benworth​​Capitol​​Partners,​​LLC​​(“Benworth”),​​out​​of​​Coral​​Gables,​​Florida,​​to​​fund​
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 264     Filed 06/23/25     Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 1308

​Ms.​ ​Wright’s​ ​fictitious​ ​PPP​ ​loan.​ ​Based​ ​on​ ​information​ ​provided​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Government,​
​Benworth’s​ ​servers​ ​are​​located​​in​​Miami,​​Florida.​​However,​​it​​is​​believed​​that​​Benworth’s​
​servers​ ​never​ ​actually​ ​received​ ​the​ ​electronic​ ​application​ ​because​​Benworth​​was​​relying​
​exclusively​ ​on​ ​Womply​ ​to​ ​underwrite​ ​and​ ​approve​ ​the​ ​loan​ ​applications​ ​at​ ​that​ ​time.​
​Regardless,​ ​none​ ​of​ ​this​ ​information​ ​was​ ​transmitted​ ​through​ ​the​ ​Southern​ ​District​ ​of​
​West Virginia.​
​Upon​​funding​​the​​PPP​​Loan​​on​​May​​7,​​2021,​​Benworth​​electronically​​deposited,​​via​
​ACH,​ ​the​ ​$15,625​ ​PPP​ ​proceeds​ ​into​ ​Ms.​ ​Wright’s​ ​Bancorp​ ​Bank​ ​account​ ​-​ ​aka​ ​Chime.​
​Bancorp​ ​Bank​ ​is​ ​registered​ ​as​ ​a​ ​Delaware​ ​Corporation,​​but​​is​​not​​a​​certified​​business​​in​
​West​ ​Virginia.​ ​There​ ​is​ ​no​ ​reason​ ​to​ ​believe​ ​that​ ​Bancorp​ ​has​ ​servers​ ​that​ ​process​
​electronic ACH money transfers in the Southern District of West Virginia.​
​Finally,​​all​​of​​the​​funding​​for​​PPP​​loans​​was​​federally​​backed​​by​​the​​Small​​Business​
​Administration.​ ​Based​ ​on​ ​information​ ​received​ ​from​ ​the​ ​Government,​ ​no​ ​servers​
​processing​​PPP​​loans,​​which​​were​​electronically​​received,​​reside​​in​​the​​Southern​​District​​of​
​West Virginia.​
​Law​
​Federal​ ​Rule​ ​of​ ​Criminal​ ​Procedure​ ​18​ ​prescribes​ ​that​ ​“the​ ​government​ ​must​
​prosecute​ ​an​ ​offense​ ​in​ ​the​ ​district​ ​where​ ​the​ ​offense​ ​was​ ​committed”​ ​unless​ ​a​ ​statute​
​permits​​otherwise.​​Fed.​​R.​​Crim.​​P.​​18​.​​“Bank​​Fraud”​​as​​defined​​by​​18​​U.S.C.​​1344(1)&(2)​​is​
​subject​ ​to​ ​the​ ​general​ ​federal​ ​venue​ ​statute,​ ​which​ ​states​ ​that​ ​a​ ​federal​​criminal​​offense​
​which“beg[ins]​ ​in​ ​one​ ​district​ ​and​ ​completed​​in​​another,​​or​​committed​​in​​more​​than​​one​
​district,”​ ​may​ ​be​ ​“prosecuted​ ​in​ ​any​ ​district​ ​in​ ​which​ ​such​ ​offense​ ​begun,​ ​continued,​ ​or​
​completed.”​ ​18​​U.S.C.​​3237(a).​​Venue​ ​is​​“determined​​from​​the​​nature​​of​​the​​crime​​alleged​
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 264     Filed 06/23/25     Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 1309

​and​ ​the​ ​location​ ​of​ ​the​ ​act​ ​or​​acts​​constituting​​it.”​​United​​States​​v.​​Ebersole,​​411​​F.3d​​517,​
​524​ ​(4th​ ​Cir.​ ​2005).​ ​This​ ​means​ ​that​ ​there​ ​may​ ​be​ ​more​ ​than​ ​one​ ​appropriate​ ​venue,​
​including​​“a​​venue​​in​​which​​the​​defendant​​has​​never​​set​​foot.”​​United​​States​​v.​​Bowens​,​​224​
​F.3d​​302,​​309​​(4th​​Cir.​​2000).​​However,​​venue​​is​​generally​​limited​​to​​the​​place​​in​​which​​the​
​“essential​ ​conduct”​ ​elements​ ​of​ ​the​ ​offense​ ​occurred.​ ​Id.​ ​“In​ ​order​ ​to​ ​determine​ ​the​
​propriety​ ​of​ ​venue,​ ​we​ ​must​ ​first​ ​identify​ ​the​ ​conduct​ ​constituting​ ​the​ ​offense​ ​and​ ​the​
​location​ ​of​ ​the​ ​criminal​ ​acts.”​ ​United​​States​​v.​​Bankole,​​39​ ​F.​ ​App'x​ ​839,​ ​841–43​ ​(4th​ ​Cir.​
​2002)​​citing United States v. Barnette,​​211 F.3d 803,​​813 (4th Cir. 2000).​
​The​ ​inquiry​ ​into​ ​venue​ ​has​ ​two​​parts.​​First,​​the​​Courts​​must​​“identify​​the​​conduct​
​constituting​​the​​offense,​​United​​States​​v.​​Smith,​​452​​F.3d​​323,​​334​​(4th​​Cir.​​2006)​​(quoting​
​United​​States​​v.​​Rodriguez-Moreno,​​526​​U.S.​​275,​​279​​(1999)),​​because​​venue​​is​​limited​​“to​
​the​ ​place​ ​of​ ​the​ ​essential​ ​conduct​ ​of​ ​the​ ​offense.”​ ​United​​States​​v.​​Bowens​,​ ​224​​F.3d​​302,​
​309​​(4th​​Cir.​​2000).​​Second,​​the​​Court​​determines​​where​​the​​criminal​​conduct​​took​​place.​
​Smith,​​452 F.2d at 334.​
​In​ ​determining​​the​​essential​​conduct​​elements​​courts​​may​​“analyze​​the​​key​​‘verbs’​
​or​​actions​​sanctioned​​by​​the​​statute[.]”​​United​​States​​v.​​Sterling,​​860​​F.3d​​233,​​241​​(4th​​Cir.​
​2017)​ ​(quoting​ ​United​​States​​v.​​Rodriguez-Moreno,​​526​ ​U.S.​ ​275,​ ​279​ ​(1999).​ ​“Acts​​which​
​are​ ​merely​ ​‘preparatory’​ ​to​ ​the​ ​underlying​ ​offense​ ​and​ ​its​ ​essential​ ​conduct,​ ​however,​
​cannot​ ​provide​ ​a​ ​basis​ ​for​ ​venue.”​ ​Id.​ ​at​ ​241.​ ​Similarly,​ ​acts​ ​which​ ​occur​ ​only​ ​in​
​furtherance​ ​of​ ​the​ ​crime​ ​or​ ​after​ ​a​ ​crime​ ​is​ ​complete​ ​cannot​ ​provide​ ​a​ ​basis​ ​for​ ​venue​
​because​ ​they​ ​are​ ​not​ ​essential​ ​to​ ​the​ ​underlying​ ​offense.”​ ​United​​States​​v.​​Jefferson​,​ ​674​
​F.3d​ ​332,​ ​367​ ​(4th​ ​Cir.​ ​2012)​ ​(finding​ ​venue​ ​improper​ ​for​ ​a​ ​wire​ ​fraud​ ​case​ ​because​
​although​​acts​​in​​furtherance​​of​​the​​crime​​occurred​​in​​the​​relevant​​district,​​“the​​physical​​act​
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 264     Filed 06/23/25     Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 1310

​of​ ​transmitting​ ​the​ ​wire​ ​communication​ ​for​ ​the​ ​purpose​​of​​executing​​the​​fraud​​scheme,”​
​did​​not);​​United​​States​​v.​​Harris,​​No.​​3:12-cr-170,​​2013​​WL​​1790140,​​at​​*2​​(E.D.​​Va.​​Apr.​​26,​
​2013)​​(action​​taken​​after​​a​​crime​​is​​complete​​“does​​not​​qualify​​as​​essential​​conduct​​of​​the​
​offense for the simple reason that the crime has already been completed”).​
​Argument​
​The​ ​essential​ ​conduct​ ​element​ ​of​ ​“Bank​ ​Fraud”​ ​is​ ​the​ ​execution​ ​of​ ​a​ ​scheme​ ​to​
​defraud​​a​​financial​​institution.​​As​​it​​relates​​to​​this​​case,​​Ms.​​Sutton’s​​mouse​​click​​submitting​
​the​ ​PPP​ ​loan​ ​application​ ​and​ ​Schedule​ ​C​​with​​knowingly​​false​​information​​in​​New​​Jersey​
​City,​​New​​Jersey​​to​​the​​Womply​​platform​​and​​Benworth’s​​funding​​of​​the​​$15,625​​in​​Miami​
​or​​Coral​​Gables​​Florida​​to​​an​​account​​with​​Bancorp​​was​​the​​essential​​conduct​​making​​up​
​the​​bank​​fraud​​allegation.​​In​​other​​words,​​this​​was​​all​​that​​was​​necessary​​to​​complete​​the​
​crime​ ​and​ ​none​ ​of​ ​that​ ​touches​ ​the​ ​Southern​ ​District​ ​of​ ​West​​Virginia.​​The​​fact​​that​​it​​is​
​alleged​ ​that​ ​Ms.​ ​Sutton​ ​and​ ​Ms.​ ​Wright​ ​devised​ ​a​ ​scheme​ ​to​ ​defraud​ ​is​ ​irrelevant.​ ​You​
​cannot​ ​commit​ ​bank​ ​fraud​ ​by​ ​devising​ ​a​ ​scheme​ ​to​ ​defraud,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​the​ ​execution​ ​that​
​matters.​​Likewise,​​it​​is​​irrelevant​​that​​Ms.​​Wright​​may​​have​​sent​​Ms.​​Sutton​​$3,000​​in​​as​​a​
​kickback,​​because​​the​​crime​​of​​bank​​fraud​​had​​already​​been​​completed​​at​​the​​point​​where​
​she​ ​submitted​ ​the​ ​false​ ​application.​ ​The​ ​execution​ ​of​ ​a​ ​Bank​ ​Fraud​ ​scheme​ ​does​ ​not​
​require​ ​the​ ​receiving​ ​of​ ​funds.​ ​At​ ​best,​ ​the​ ​execution​ ​began​ ​in​ ​New​ ​Jersey​ ​and​ ​at​​worst​
​ended​ ​when​ ​Benworth​ ​received​ ​the​ ​application​ ​in​ ​Florida.​ ​There​​are​​multiple​​cases​​that​
​support this analysis.​
​In​ ​United​ ​States​ ​v.​ ​Bankole,​ ​39​ ​F.App’x​ ​839​ ​(4th​ ​Cir.​ ​2002)(per​ ​curiam),​ ​the​
​Defendant​ ​was​ ​Indicted​ ​on​ ​Bank​ ​Fraud​ ​charges​ ​for​ ​initiating​ ​a​ ​debit​ ​transaction​ ​from​
​Maryland​ ​(in​ ​our​ ​case​ ​New​ ​Jersey)​ ​which​ ​resulted​ ​in​ ​a​ ​transfer​ ​of​ ​funds​​to​​a​​vendor​​in​
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 264     Filed 06/23/25     Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 1311

​New​​Hampshire​​(in​​our​​case​​Bancorp​​-​​wherever​​its​​servers​​are)​​that​​was​​effected​​when​
​the​ ​electronic​ ​request​ ​was​ ​received​ ​and​ ​processed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​bank​ ​in​ ​Virginia​ ​(in​ ​our​ ​case​
​wherever​ ​Womply​ ​servers​ ​are​ ​or​​Bensworth​​Servers​​in​​Miami).​​The​​Court​​held​​that​​that​
​venue​​was​​proper​​in​​the​​Eastern​​District​​of​​Virginia,​​because​​“the​​bank​​fraud​​offense​​was​
​begun​ ​in​ ​Maryland,​ ​continued​ ​into​ ​New​ ​Hampshire,​ ​and​ ​was​ ​completed​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Eastern​
​District​ ​of​ ​Virginia.”​ ​Id.​ ​This​ ​makes​ ​sense​ ​because​ ​the​ ​money​ ​being​ ​moved​ ​processed​
​through​ ​these​ ​jurisdictions.​ ​Unlike​ ​Bankole​,​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​in​ ​this​ ​case​​is​​attempting​​to​
​hitch​​venue​​to​​Ms.​​Wright’s​​transaction​​in​​the​​Southern​​District​​of​​West​​Virginia​​after​​her​
​Bank, Bancorp, received the money outside of West Virginia.​
​United​​States​​v.​​Verclas​,​​No.​​GJH-18-160,​​2019​​WL​​95148​​(D.​​Md.​​Jan.​​3,​​2019),​​is​​a​
​good​ ​example​ ​of​ ​what​ ​the​ ​Government​​is​​trying​​to​​do​​in​​this​​case​​-​​which​​is,​​base​​venue​
​off​ ​of​ ​Ms.​​Wright’s​​act​​of​​transferring​​portions​​of​​the​​PPP​​loan​​proceeds​​in​​the​​Southern​
​District​​of​​West​​Virginia​​back​​to​​Ms.​​Sutton​​after​​the​​essential​​conduct​​of​​Bank​​Fraud​​had​
​been completed. The Court would not allow it.​
​The​​Defendant​​in​​Verclas​​submitted​​a​​grant​​application​​that​​falsely​​represented​​that​
​her​ ​Delaware​ ​based​ ​corporation​ ​was​ ​a​ ​New​ ​York​ ​non-profit​ ​organization​ ​with​ ​the​ ​legal​
​authority​​to​​apply​​for​​the​​grant.​​Based​​on​​the​​application,​​the​​State​​Department​​awarded​
​Verclas​’​ ​corporation​ ​the​ ​grant​ ​money.​ ​She​ ​later​ ​withdrew​ ​it​ ​and​ ​used​ ​it​ ​on​ ​personal​
​expenses.​​This​​is​​exactly​​the​​conduct​​in​​the​​case​​before​​this​​court.​ ​To​​distribute​​the​​grant​
​funds,​ ​the​ ​State​ ​Department​ ​used​ ​a​ ​Payment​ ​Management​ ​System​ ​located​ ​in​ ​Maryland.​
​Verclas​ ​used​ ​the​ ​Payment​ ​Management​ ​System​ ​to​ ​withdraw​ ​the​ ​funds​ ​for​ ​her​ ​personal​
​use.​​The​​Government​​charged​​her​​with​​a​​violation​​of​​the​​Major​​Fraud​​Act​​18​​U.S.C.​​§1031.​
​Verclas​ ​moved​ ​to​ ​dismiss​ ​the​ ​Indictment​ ​challenging​ ​venue​ ​and​ ​arguing​ ​that​ ​the​
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 264     Filed 06/23/25     Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 1312

​Indictment​ ​fails​ ​to​ ​allege​ ​facts​ ​showing​ ​that​ ​she​ ​committed​ ​the​ ​charged​ ​offense​ ​in​ ​the​
​District​​of​​Maryland.​​The​​Government​​argued​​that​​her​​accessing​​the​​Payment​​Management​
​System​ ​to​ ​withdraw​ ​the​ ​funds,​ ​which​ ​were​ ​processed​ ​in​ ​Maryland,​ ​after​ ​they​ ​were​
​received gave Maryland jurisdiction.​
​The​ ​Court​ ​first​ ​determined​ ​what​ ​the​ ​conduct​ ​element​ ​to​ ​Major​ ​Fraud​ ​was​ ​and​
​determined​ ​it​ ​was​ ​not​ ​the​ ​scheme​ ​to​ ​defraud,​ ​but​​the​​knowing​​execution​​of​​the​​scheme.​
​The​ ​Court​ ​held​ ​that​​Verclas​​executed​​her​​scheme​​to​​defraud​​and​​obtain​​money​​from​​the​
​Government​​when​​she​​submitted​​her​​fraudulent​​grant​​application​​from​​her​​offices​​in​​New​
​York.​ ​There​ ​was​ ​no​ ​allegation​ ​that​ ​this​ ​submission​ ​occurred​ ​or​ ​involved​ ​Maryland.​ ​The​
​scheme​​to​​defraud​​was​​to​​obtain​​the​​grant​​money​​by​​submitting​​a​​fraudulent​​application.​
​The​ ​Court​ ​further,​ ​and​ ​more​ ​importantly,​ ​held​ ​that​ ​once​ ​the​ ​Defendant​ ​submitted​ ​the​
​application,​ ​the​ ​scheme​ ​had​ ​been​ ​executed​ ​and​ ​she​ ​did​ ​not​ ​need​ ​to​ ​engage​ ​in​ ​any​
​additional​ ​conduct​ ​to​ ​commit​ ​the​ ​crime.​ ​Because​ ​actually​ ​obtaining​ ​the​ ​money​ ​is​​not​​an​
​element​ ​of​ ​Major​ ​Fraud,​ ​much​ ​less​​an​​essential​​conduct​​element,​​it​​is​​not​​relevant​​to​​the​
​venue​ ​inquiry​ ​that​ ​the​ ​State​ ​Department​ ​awarded​ ​the​ ​funds​ ​through​ ​a​ ​Maryland​ ​based​
​Payment​​System.​​The​​Court​​held​​that​​action​​did​​not​​contribute​​to​​any​​element​​of​​the​​crime​
​and was not an essential conduct element.​
​The​​Indictment​​fails​​to​​specify​​any​​essential​​conduct​​of​​Bank​​Fraud​​that​​occurred​​in​
​the​ ​Southern​ ​District​ ​of​ ​West​ ​Virginia.​ ​In​ ​fact,​ ​the​ ​Second​​Superseding​​Indictment​​states​
​that​ ​Ms.​ ​Sutton​ ​was​ ​a​ ​resident​ ​of​ ​New​ ​Jersey​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time.​ ​Maybe​ ​the​ ​easiest​ ​way​ ​to​
​breakdown this Indictment is to consider the allegations in three parts:​
​First,​​the​​co-defendants​​in​​the​​Southern​​District​​of​​West​​Virginia​​devised​​a​​scheme​
​whereby​ ​they​ ​would​ ​agree​ ​to​ ​commit​ ​bank​ ​fraud​ ​and​ ​to​ ​do​ ​so​ ​shared​ ​their​ ​personal​
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 264     Filed 06/23/25     Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 1313

​information​​to​​Ms.​​Sutton​​in​​New​​Jersey​​so​​that​​she​​could​​type​​it​​into​​the​​loan​​application.​
​This​ ​is​ ​what​ ​is​ ​called​ ​a​ ​preparatory​ ​act.​ ​“Acts​ ​which​ ​are​ ​merely​ ​‘preparatory’​ ​to​ ​the​
​underlying​ ​offense​ ​and​​its​​essential​​conduct,​​however,​​cannot​​provide​​a​​basis​​for​​venue.”​
​United​ ​States​ ​v.​ ​Sterling,​ ​860​ ​F.3d​ ​233,​ ​241​ ​(4th​ ​Cir.​ ​2017)​ ​(quoting​ ​United​ ​States​ ​v.​
​Rodriguez-Moreno,​​526​ ​U.S.​ ​275,​ ​279​ ​(1999).​ ​“Acts​​which​​are​​merely​​‘preparatory’​​to​​the​
​underlying​ ​offense​ ​and​​its​​essential​​conduct,​​however,​​cannot​​provide​​a​​basis​​for​​venue.”​
​Id.​​at 241.​
​Second,​ ​Ms.​ ​Sutton​ ​took​ ​the​ ​personal​ ​information​ ​of​ ​her​ ​co-defendant​ ​and​
​submitted​​an​​application.​​This​​act​​is​​the​​“essential​​conduct​​element”​​of​​bank​​fraud​​as​​it​​is​
​the​​execution​​of​​the​​previously​​devised​​scheme.​​“[V]enue​​is​​generally​​limited​​to​​the​​place​
​in​ ​which​ ​the​ ​“essential​ ​conduct”​ ​elements​ ​of​ ​the​ ​offense​ ​occurred.​ ​Id.​ ​“In​ ​order​ ​to​
​determine​ ​the​ ​propriety​ ​of​ ​venue,​ ​we​ ​must​ ​first​ ​identify​ ​the​ ​conduct​ ​constituting​ ​the​
​offense​ ​and​ ​the​ ​location​ ​of​ ​the​ ​criminal​ ​acts.”​ ​United​​States​​v.​​Bankole,​​39​ ​F.​ ​App'x​ ​839,​
​841–43 (4th Cir. 2002)​​citing United States v. Barnette,​​211 F.3d 803, 813 (4th Cir. 2000).​
​Third,​ ​after​ ​the​ ​PPP​ ​Funds​ ​were​ ​deposited​ ​into​ ​the​ ​co-defendant’s​ ​accounts,​ ​the​
​co-defendants​ ​provided​ ​“kickback”​ ​payments.​ ​The​ ​act​ ​of​ ​providing​ ​“kickback”​ ​payments​
​are​ ​acts​ ​in​ ​furtherance​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bank​ ​fraud​ ​crime​ ​and​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​used​ ​to​ ​analyze​ ​venue.​
​“Similarly,​ ​acts​ ​which​ ​occur​ ​only​ ​in​​furtherance​​of​​the​​crime​​or​​after​​a​​crime​​is​​complete​
​cannot​​provide​​a​​basis​​for​​venue​​because​​they​​are​​not​​essential​​to​​the​​underlying​​offense.”​
​United​​States​​v.​​Jefferson​,​​674​​F.3d​​332,​​367​​(4th​​Cir.​​2012)​​(finding​​venue​​improper​​for​​a​
​wire​​fraud​​case​​because​​although​​acts​​in​​furtherance​​of​​the​​crime​​occurred​​in​​the​​relevant​
​district,​ ​“the​ ​physical​ ​act​ ​of​ ​transmitting​ ​the​ ​wire​ ​communication​ ​for​ ​the​ ​purpose​ ​of​
​executing​ ​the​ ​fraud​ ​scheme,”​ ​did​ ​not);​ ​United​​States​​v.​​Harris,​​No.​ ​3:12-cr-170,​ ​2013​​WL​
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 264     Filed 06/23/25     Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 1314

​1790140,​ ​at​ ​*2​ ​(E.D.​ ​Va.​ ​Apr.​​26,​​2013)​​(action​​taken​​after​​a​​crime​​is​​complete​​“does​​not​
​qualify​​as​​essential​​conduct​​of​​the​​offense​​for​​the​​simple​​reason​​that​​the​​crime​​has​​already​
​been completed”).​
​Conclusion​
​WHEREFORE,​ ​the​ ​Defendant​ ​respectfully​ ​requests​ ​the​ ​Court​ ​enter​ ​and​ ​Order​
​dismissing​ ​Count​ ​Two​ ​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 264     Filed 06/23/25     Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 1315

​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 264     Filed 06/23/25     Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 1316

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.wvsd.240497.264.0.pdf

Size

124,327 bytes

SHA-256

da371ea7fc9d9c187ba97a603b986df4d4da9ecab9f6d5d3d9d29eb8d91888c1

Our copy

gov.uscourts.wvsd.240497.264.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)