Memorandum Opinion and Order — United States v. Sutton et al. (Dkt. 296, S.D. W. Va.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia · No. 2:24-cr-00192 · Doc. 296 · 2025-06-30 · 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 
 
KISHA SUTTON -01, 
SHAMIESE WRIGHT -02, 
 
Defendants. 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
 
The Court has reviewed the Government’s Motion for Judicial Notice (Document 272), 
wherein the Government asks the Court to take judicial notice of the Paycheck Protection Program 
(“PPP”) federal administrative rules and that Huntington, Charleston, and South Charleston are all 
located within the Southern District of West Virginia.  The Court has also reviewed Defendant 
Kisha Sutton’s Response to Government’s Motion for Judicial Notice (Document 275) and all 
exhibits attached to the parties’ briefs.  For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that the 
Government’s motion should be granted. 
Under Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, a court may take judicial notice of a 
“fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial 
court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose 
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”  The Fourth Circuit has held that matters of public 
record and other adjudicative facts may be judicially noticed.  Goldfarb v. Mayor & City Council 
of Balt., 791 F.3d 500, 508–09 (4th Cir. 2015).  The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 201(a) 
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 296     Filed 06/30/25     Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1491

2 
clarify that an adjudicative fact is simply a fact of a particular case.  The court can either take 
judicial notice on its own or at a party’s request.  Fed. R. Evid. 201(c).  
The Government requests that the Court take judicial notice of the PPP rules and 
regulations, specifically sections 1102 and 1106 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 
Security Act (“CARES” Act), that were promulgated by the Small Business Administration and 
reported in the Federal Register.  It argues that these rules and regulations “are not subject to 
reasonable dispute because they can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose 
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”  (Document 272 at 3).  It states these rules are 
relevant because they establish what entities are eligible for PPP loans, the proper use of the loan 
proceeds, and are needed to explain the Defendants’ fraud scheme.  Further, the United States 
asks the Court to take judicial notice that the following municipalities are within the Southern 
District of West Virginia: Huntington, Cabell County, West Virginia; Charleston, Kanawha 
County, West Virginia; and South Charleston, Kanawha County, West Virginia.  
In response, Defendant Kisha Sutton argues that the PPP rules were amended several times, 
and the Government has not provided context on which rules it seeks to judicially notice in relation 
to the crimes for which Ms. Sutton is accused.  She contends that admitting the rules in their 
entirety will deprive her of the opportunity to contest whether a particular rule was in place at the 
time of Ms. Sutton’s alleged actions.  She does not object to the court taking judicial notice that 
Huntington, Charleston, and South Charleston are located within the Southern District of West 
Virginia.  However, she objects to the Court taking judicial notice that any crime took place in 
these locations as set forth in her pending Motion to Dismiss Counts One and Two for Lack of 
Venue as to Kisha Sutton (Document 264).   
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 296     Filed 06/30/25     Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1492

3 
The Court finds that judicial notice of the PPP rules and regulations, sections 1102 and 
1106 of the CARES Act, is appropriate.  44 U.S.C. § 1507 establishes a rebuttable presumption 
that documents published in the Federal Register are “duly issued, prescribed, or promulgated” 
and requires that “[t]he contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed.”  While Ms. 
Sutton contends that admitting these rules will prevent her from contesting whether a particular 
rule was in place at the time of the alleged acts, the Government has specifically set forth which 
PPP rules to which it refers, citations and links to the rules, as well as the rules’ publication dates 
in Exhibit A of its motion.  The Court is instructed by statute to take judicial notice of rules and 
regulations published in the Federal Register by statute, and it must do so.  As such, the Court 
takes judicial notice of the PPP rules and regulations set forth in sections 1102 and 1106 of the 
CARES Act. 
The Court also takes judicial notice that the cities of Huntington, Charleston, and South 
Charleston, West Virginia, are all located in the Southern District of West Virginia.  While the 
Defendant objects to the Court taking judicial notice that any crime took place in the Southern 
District of West Virginia, the Government did not request that the Court take such judicial notice.  
The Court notes Ms. Sutton’s objection to venue.  However, that objection is more appropriately 
addressed outside of the context of judicial notice and is unnecessary to discuss here. 
Wherefore, after careful consideration, the Court ORDERS that the Government’s Motion 
for Judicial Notice (Document 272) be GRANTED.   
 
 
 
 
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 296     Filed 06/30/25     Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1493

4 
 
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to the Defendants and their 
respective counsel, to the United States Attorney, to the United States Probation Office, and to the 
Office of the United States Marshal. 
ENTER:     June 30, 2025 
 
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 296     Filed 06/30/25     Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1494

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.wvsd.240497.296.0.pdf

Size

179,962 bytes

SHA-256

6b4d1c025a50db7c9ff9c660be6cd8c9fd189d07a72d8f3d826fd1b165ac2cc8

Our copy

gov.uscourts.wvsd.240497.296.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com