Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts One and Two for Lack of Venue, Kisha Sutton — United States v. Sutton

Summary

In this motion filed on 06/23/25 as Document 264 in Case 2:24-cr-00192 in the Southern District of West Virginia, Kisha Sutton, through counsel Connor Robertson, asked the court to dismiss Count One, bank fraud, and Count Two, money laundering, of the Second Superseding Indictment for lack of venue. The counts rest on a loan application Sutton allegedly caused to be submitted to Financial Institution 1 on behalf of defendant Ms. Wright, a $15,625 loan, and $3,000 that Wright remitted to Sutton. The motion says the application was submitted electronically from New Jersey through Womply, a financial technology company that matched applicants to lenders, and that nothing was transmitted through the district. It argues that the kickback payments made in West Virginia were acts after or in furtherance of the crime and cannot establish venue.

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’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)