Sentencing Memorandum as to Kisha Sutton — United States v. Sutton et al. (Dkt. 416, S.D. W. Va.)

Summary

Defendant Kisha Sutton's sentencing memorandum in Case No. 2:24-cr–00192-01, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, filed 11/24/25 as Document 416 by counsel Connor Robertson. It says Sutton stands convicted of aiding and abetting bank fraud and aiding and abetting money laundering, with a Total Offense Level of 19 and a guideline range of 30-37 months as a zero point offender. The memo asks for a sentence well below that range, specifically probation or home confinement, and seeks a departure for family ties and responsibilities. It argues that her guideline is driven by the loss amount even though she did not receive most of the money, and that co-defendants who received substantially greater amounts all received lesser sentences.

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​
​UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,​
​PLAINTIFF,​
​V.​
​CASE NO.: 2:24-cr–00192-01​
​KISHA SUTTON,​
​DEFENDANT.​
​DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM​
​NOW​ ​COMES​ ​the​ ​Defendant,​ ​Kisha​ ​Sutton,​ ​by​ ​and​ ​through​ ​her​ ​counsel,​ ​Connor​
​Robertson, and submits the following Sentencing Memorandum:​
​CONVICTION AND GUIDELINE CALCULATION​
​As​ ​the​ ​Court​ ​is​ ​aware,​ ​Ms.​ ​Sutton​ ​stands​ ​convicted​ ​of​ ​aiding​​and​​abetting​​bank​
​fraud​ ​in​ ​violation​ ​of​ ​18​ ​U.S.C.​ ​§§1344​ ​and​ ​2​,​ ​and​ ​of​ ​aiding​ ​and​ ​abetting​ ​money​
​laundering​ ​in​ ​violation​ ​of​ ​18​ ​U.S.C.​ ​§§​ ​1956(a)(1)(B)(i)​ ​and​ ​(2)​.​ ​As​ ​indicated​ ​in​ ​the​
​Presentence​ ​Investigation​ ​Report​ ​(“PSR”),​ ​dated​ ​November​ ​17,​ ​2025,​ ​the​ ​Total​ ​Offense​
​Level​​for​​Ms.​​Sutton​​is​​19.​​See​​PSR​​⁋​​87.​​Ms.​​Sutton’s​​Total​​Criminal​​History​​Score​​places​
​her​​in​​Category​​I​​as​​a​​zero​​point​​offender.​​Id.​ ​Thus,​​Ms.​​Sutton’s​​corresponding​​sentencing​
​guideline range, as calculated by probation, is​​30-37​​months​.​
​For​​all​​of​​the​​reasons​​set​​forth​​below,​​Ms.​​Sutton​​respectfully​​requests​​the​​Court​​to​
​sentence​ ​her​​well​​below​​this​​guideline​​range​​after​​applying​​the​​following​​departures​​and​
​variances​​which​​will​​allow​​the​​Court​​to​​fashion​​a​​sentence​​for​​Ms.​​Sutton​​that​​is​​sufficient,​
​but​ ​not​ ​greater​ ​than​ ​necessary.​ ​To​ ​be​ ​clear,​ ​Ms.​ ​Sutton​ ​seeks​ ​a​ ​probationary​ ​or​ ​home​
​confinement sentence. Ms. Sutton’s letter to the Court is attached as​​Exhibit 1​.​
​RELEVANT GUIDELINE DEPARTURES​
​A.​ ​§5H1.6 Family Ties and Responsibilities - Loss of Caretaking and Support​
​Ms.​​Sutton​​carries​​significant​​family​​responsibilities.​​She​​is​​the​​sole​​provider​​for​​her​
​household​​and​​the​​only​​source​​of​​financial​​support.​​She​​pays​​the​​rent,​​utilities,​​phone,​​and​
​all​​household​​expenses.​​Ms.​​Sutton​​is​​the​​mother​​of​​two​​children,​​and​​her​​youngest,​​who​​is​
​18​ ​years​ ​old,​ ​is​ ​currently​​in​​college​​and​​six​​months​​pregnant.​​Her​​pregnancy​​is​​high​​risk​
​and​​requires​​continuous​​medical​​attention.​​Ms.​​Sutton​​provides​​health​​insurance​​through​
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 416     Filed 11/24/25     Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 2752

​her​ ​employment​ ​and​ ​she​ ​assists​ ​with​ ​all​ ​medical​ ​and​ ​pregnancy​ ​related​ ​costs​ ​for​ ​her​
​daughter.​​Ms.​​Sutton​​also​​serves​​as​​her​​doula,​​attending​​her​​daughter’s​​appointments​​and​
​preparing​ ​to​ ​support​ ​her​ ​through​ ​childbirth.​ ​Without​ ​Ms.​ ​Sutton’s​ ​presence​ ​for​ ​her​
​daughter,​ ​she​ ​would​ ​have​ ​no​ ​reliable​ ​caretaker​ ​or​ ​financial​ ​stability​ ​during​ ​this​ ​critical​
​time in her life.​
​Additionally,​​Ms.​​Sutton​​has​​taken​​in​​her​​niece’s​​three​​children​​-​​ages​​7,​​10,​​and​​15​​-​
​while​ ​their​ ​mother​ ​recovers​ ​from​ ​serious​ ​health​ ​complications​ ​in​ ​a​ ​nursing​ ​home.​ ​Ms.​
​Sutton​​has​​cared​​for​​them​​for​​the​​past​​three​​months,​​ensuring​​they​​have​​stability,​​love,​​and​
​support.​​Ms.​​Sutton​​is​​also​​responsible​​for​​assisting​​her​​elderly​​and​​disabled​​mother​​with​
​daily​ ​living​ ​needs,​ ​including​ ​cooking,​ ​cleaning,​ ​and​ ​transportation.​ ​These​ ​dependants​ ​all​
​rely on Ms. Sutton daily, both emotionally and financially.​
​§​​5H1.6​​sets​​forth​​a​​non-exhaustive​​list​​of​​circumstances​​for​​the​​Court​​to​​consider​
​in​ ​determining​ ​whether​ ​a​ ​departure​ ​for​​family​​ties​​and​​responsibilities​​is​​warranted.​​Ms.​
​Sutton​​certainly​​appreciates​​the​​seriousness​​of​​the​​offense​​and​​by​​further​​argument​​does​
​not​ ​intend​ ​to​ ​suggest​ ​otherwise;​​however,​​in​​comparison​​to​​other​​statutory​​offenses​​this​
​Court​ ​sees​ ​regularly​ ​(drugs,​ ​guns,​ ​and​ ​other​ ​violence),​ ​her​ ​offense's​ ​seriousness​ ​is​
​somewhat​ ​lessened.​ ​Ms.​ ​Sutton’s​ ​elevated​​guideline​​is​​tied​​to​​the​​dollar​​figure​​amount​​of​
​loss,​ ​but​ ​she​ ​did​ ​not​ ​receive​ ​the​ ​financial​ ​benefit​ ​of​ ​the​ ​total​ ​amounts.​ ​Ms.​ ​Sutton​
​recognizes​ ​her​ ​responsibility​ ​in​ ​the​ ​total​ ​loss​​amounts,​​but​​her​​co-defendants,​​who​​each​
​received​ ​substantially​ ​greater​ ​amounts​ ​of​ ​the​ ​money,​ ​all​ ​received​ ​lesser​ ​sentences.​ ​This​
​factor​ ​should​ ​weigh​ ​in​ ​Ms.​ ​Sutton’s​ ​favor.​ ​The​ ​next​ ​two​ ​factors​ ​are​ ​not​ ​relevant​ ​to​ ​Ms.​
​Sutton’s offense conduct.​
​Beyond​ ​the​ ​factors​ ​above,​ ​because​ ​Ms.​ ​Ball​ ​is​ ​seeking​ ​departure​ ​on​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​
​loss​​of​​caretaking​​or​​financial​​support,​​the​​following​​circumstances​​must​​also​​be​​present:​
​(i)​ ​a​ ​within-range​ ​sentence​ ​would​ ​“cause​ ​a​ ​substantial,​​direct​​and​​specific​​loss”​​of​​either​
​essential​​caretaking​​or​​financial​​support​​of​​Ms.​​Ball’s​​family;​​(ii)​​such​​a​​loss​​“exceeds”​​the​
​harm​ ​ordinarily​ ​incident​ ​to​ ​incarceration​ ​for​ ​a​ ​similarly​ ​situated​ ​defendant;​ ​(iii)​ ​“no​
​effective​ ​remedial​ ​or​ ​ameliorative​ ​programs​ ​are​ ​reasonably​ ​available,”​ ​so​ ​that​ ​the​
​defendant’s​​support​​is​​“irreplaceable”;​​(iv)​​a​​departure​​“effectively​​will​​address​​the​​loss​​of​
​caretaking of financial support.”​
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 416     Filed 11/24/25     Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 2753

​Again,​ ​in​ ​Ms.​ ​Sutton’s​ ​case,​ ​all​ ​of​ ​these​ ​circumstances​ ​are​ ​present.​ ​A​ ​prison​
​sentence​ ​of​ ​30-37​ ​months​ ​would​ ​leave​ ​three​ ​school​ ​aged​ ​children​ ​without​ ​their​
​sole-caretaker.​​Those​​children​​would​​be​​without​​financial​​support​​provided​​by​​Ms.​​Sutton​
​as​​well​​as​​medical,​​educational,​​and​​housing.​​Ms.​​Sutton’s​​youngest​​daughter​​will​​lose​​her​
​insurance​ ​and​​medical​​support​​by​​incarceration.​​Incarceration​​would​​impact​​Ms.​​Sutton’s​
​family​ ​and​ ​dependents​ ​more​ ​substantially​ ​than​ ​any​ ​other​ ​mother​ ​facing​ ​charges.​ ​First,​
​there​ ​are​ ​likely​ ​far​ ​fewer​ ​single​ ​mothers​ ​and​ ​caretakers​ ​of​ ​four​ ​children​ ​who​ ​have​ ​no​
​fatherly​ ​or​ ​extended​ ​family​ ​support;​ ​thus,​ ​finding​ ​a​ ​similarly​ ​situated​ ​mother​ ​would​ ​be​
​difficult.​ ​Regardless,​​a​​prison​​sentence​​for​​Ms.​​Sutton​​would​​essentially​​orphan​​her​​three​
​dependents.​ ​This​ ​is​ ​not​ ​a​ ​just​ ​result.​ ​Foster​ ​care​ ​for​ ​her​ ​niece’s​ ​children​ ​and​ ​loss​ ​of​
​medical​​insurance​​and​​care​​can​​and​​should​​in​​no​​way​​be​​considered​​an​​“effective​​remedial​
​program”​​to​​substitute​​for​​her​​care​​and​​financial​​support.​​In​​many​​ways,​​as​​the​​Court​​can​
​imagine,​ ​foster​ ​care​ ​does​ ​more​ ​harm​ ​than​ ​good​ ​to​ ​children.​ ​Finally,​ ​a​ ​departure​ ​into​ ​a​
​probationary​​or​​alternative​​sentence​​would​​solve​​the​​financial​​and​​supportive​​care​​for​​Ms.​
​Sutton’s​ ​dependents,​ ​while​ ​also​​appropriately​​addressing​​the​​seriousness​​of​​her​​offense.​
​Ms.​ ​Sutton’s​ ​familial​ ​relationship​ ​with​ ​her​ ​dependents​ ​is​ ​irreplaceable​ ​and​ ​more​​unique​
​than​​the​​average​​family.​​This​​is​​especially​​true​​when​​her​​mother​​is​​disabled​​and​​her​​niece​
​is in a nursing home.​
​B.​ ​§Aberrant Behavior​
​Ms.​​Sutton​​is​​44​​years​​of​​age​​and​​has​​zero​​criminal​​history.​​Not​​a​​single​​crime​​has​
​ever​​been​​charged​​against​​her.​​Ms.​​Sutton​​is​​not​​a​​criminal,​​she​​is​​a​​single​​mother​​who​​has​
​been​ ​employed​ ​and​ ​a​ ​productive​ ​member​ ​of​ ​society.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​undeniable​ ​that​ ​covid​ ​was​ ​a​
​strange​ ​time​ ​for​ ​people​ ​with​ ​strange​ ​government​ ​regulations​ ​programs,​ ​Ms.​ ​Sutton​ ​got​
​caught​ ​up​ ​in​ ​the​ ​weirdness​ ​of​ ​the​ ​times.​ ​Ms.​ ​Sutton​ ​meets​ ​all​ ​of​ ​the​ ​aberrant​ ​behavior​
​criteria​​as​​Ms.​​Ball’s​​instant​​offense​​was​​essentially​​a​​single​​scheme​​of​​limited​​duration​​and​
​represents​ ​a​ ​marked​ ​deviation​ ​by​ ​Ms.​ ​Sutton​ ​from​ ​and​ ​otherwise​ ​law-abiding​ ​life.​
​§5K2.20(b).​
​C.​ ​Combination of Factors​
​The​​Court​​may​​depart​​from​​the​​applicable​​guideline​​range​​based​​on​​a​​combination​
​of​​two​​or​​more​​offender​​characteristics​​or​​other​​circumstances,​​none​​of​​which​​otherwise​
​suffices​ ​as​ ​a​ ​basis​ ​for​ ​departure​ ​when​ ​(1)​ ​such​ ​offender​ ​characteristics​ ​or​ ​other​
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 416     Filed 11/24/25     Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 2754

​circumstances,​ ​taken​ ​together,​ ​make​ ​the​ ​case​ ​an​ ​exceptional​ ​one;​ ​and​ ​(2)​ ​each​ ​offender​
​characteristic​ ​or​ ​other​ ​circumstance​ ​is​ ​present​ ​to​ ​a​ ​substantial​ ​degree;​ ​and​​identified​​in​
​the​​guidelines​​as​​a​​permissible​​ground​​for​​departure,​​even​​if​​such​​offender​​characteristic​
​or​ ​other​ ​circumstance​ ​is​ ​not​ ​ordinarily​ ​relevant​ ​to​ ​a​ ​determination​ ​of​ ​whether​ ​a​
​departure​​is​​warranted.​​§5K2.0(c).​​This​​allows​​the​​Court​​to​​consider​​Ms.​​Sutton’s​​Loss​​of​
​Familial Support and Aberrant Behavior together.​
​RELEVANT §3553(a) FACTORS​
​Ms.​​Sutton​​incorporates​​herein​​each​​and​​every​​argument​​stated​​above​​as​​the​​Court​
​has​ ​the​ ​ability​ ​to​ ​use​ ​those​ ​arguments​ ​to​ ​support​ ​a​ ​variance​ ​outside​ ​the​ ​narrow​
​prescriptions of specific policy statements.​
​A.​ ​The nature and circumstances of the offense.​
​Ms.​​Sutton​​certainly​​respects​​the​​seriousness​​of​​her​​offense(s)​​conviction​​and​​how​
​the​​victims​​of​​this​​scheme​​suffered​​loss.​​Ms.​​Sutton,​​however,​​did​​not​​know​​that​​this​​money​
​was​ ​coming​ ​from​ ​a​ ​financial​ ​institution​ ​as​ ​defined​ ​by​ ​law.​ ​She​ ​also​ ​relied​ ​upon​ ​her​
​lawyer’s​​advice​​that​​the​​venue​​in​​the​​Southern​​District​​of​​West​​Virginia​​was​​questionable.​
​For​ ​those​ ​two​ ​reasons​ ​alone,​ ​she​ ​chose​ ​to​ ​go​ ​to​ ​trial.​ ​She​​could​​not​​in​​good​​conscience​
​agree​ ​to​ ​plead​ ​guilty​ ​to​ ​an​ ​offense​ ​that​ ​defied​ ​her​ ​knowledge.​​Instead,​​she​​attempted​​to​
​negotiate​ ​with​ ​the​ ​government​ ​where​ ​she​ ​offered​ ​to​ ​plead​ ​guilty​ ​to​ ​conspiracy​ ​to​​make​
​false​​statements​​to​​a​​government​​organization.​​A​​crime​​that​​the​​guidelines​​would​​treat​​the​
​same​ ​for​ ​all​ ​intents​ ​and​​purposes.​​It​​was​​the​​government​​that​​refused​​her​​acceptance​​of​
​responsibility.​
​Ms.​ ​Sutton’s​ ​pretrial​ ​release​ ​conduct​ ​should​ ​also​ ​be​ ​considered.​ ​Ms.​ ​Sutton​ ​has​
​substantially​ ​complied​ ​with​ ​all​ ​pre-trial​ ​requirements.​ ​She​ ​has​ ​maintained​ ​steady​
​employment,​ ​supported​ ​her​ ​family,​ ​and​ ​attended​ ​each​ ​and​ ​every​ ​court​ ​appearance.​​Her​
​home​ ​is​ ​well​ ​qualified​ ​and​ ​suited​ ​for​ ​an​ ​alternative​ ​sentence.​ ​Positive​ ​Pre-Trial​ ​release​
​conduct​ ​supports​ ​consideration​ ​of​ ​a​ ​variance.​ ​See​​United​​States​​v.​​Davis,​ ​20​ ​F.4th​ ​1217,​
​1221​ ​(8th​ ​Cir.​ ​2022).​ ​(8th​ ​Circuit​ ​affirmed​ ​a​ ​downward​ ​variance​ ​based​ ​upon​ ​a​
​combination​​of​​the​​defendant’s​​“meritorious​​military​​career”​​and​​positive​​pretrial​​release​
​conduct).​
​B.​ ​The history and characteristics of Ms. Sutton.​
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 416     Filed 11/24/25     Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 2755

​As​ ​stated​ ​above,​ ​Ms.​ ​Sutton​ ​has​ ​no​ ​criminal​ ​history,​ ​has​ ​maintained​ ​a​ ​productive​
​employment​​record,​​and​​is​​a​​caretaker​​for​​her​​family.​​For​​the​​past​​seven​​years,​​Ms.​​Sutton​
​has​ ​been​ ​employed​ ​with​ ​an​ ​organization​ ​that​ ​provides​ ​vital​ ​support​ ​and​ ​services​ ​to​
​individuals​ ​living​ ​with​ ​HIV.​ ​Her​ ​position​ ​allows​ ​her​ ​to​ ​give​ ​back​ ​to​ ​the​ ​community​ ​in​
​meaningful​ ​ways,​ ​helping​ ​vulnerable​ ​members​ ​access​ ​care​ ​and​ ​maintain​ ​stability.​ ​Her​
​work​​is​​not​​just​​a​​job,​​it​​represents​​her​​commitment​​to​​serving​​others​​and​​being​​a​​positive​
​force​ ​in​ ​the​ ​community.​ ​She​ ​is​ ​proud​ ​of​ ​her​ ​work.​ ​In​ ​addition,​ ​she​ ​is​ ​currently​ ​in​
​counseling​​to​​address​​depression,​​anxiety,​​and​​stress.​​Ms.​​Sutton’s​​sessions​​have​​been​​an​
​essential​​part​​of​​her​​growth​​in​​getting​​her​​through​​this​​prosecution.​​Through​​counseling,​
​she​ ​has​ ​gained​ ​a​ ​greater​ ​understanding​ ​of​ ​her​ ​choices,​ ​the​ ​consequences,​ ​and​ ​how​ ​to​
​move​​forward​​in​​a​​positive​​and​​responsible​​manner.​​Ms.​​Sutton​​is​​committed​​to​​continuing​
​this​​work​​for​​her​​mental​​and​​emotional​​health,​​and​​to​​ensure​​that​​she​​does​​not​​repeat​​the​
​mistakes of her past.​
​C.​ ​The​ ​need​ ​for​​the​​sentence​​imposed​​to​​reflect​​the​​seriousness​​of​​the​​offense,​​to​
​promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment.​
​A​​probationary​​sentence​​or​​home​​confinement​​would​​reflect​​the​​seriousness​​of​​Ms.​
​Sutton’s​ ​conduct.​ ​Ms.​ ​Sutton​ ​has​ ​never​ ​been​ ​imprisoned​ ​in​ ​her​ ​life.​ ​Prison​ ​has​ ​greater​
​significance​​for​​those​​imprisoned​​for​​the​​first​​time.​​Federal​​Courts​​have​​granted​​variances​
​after​ ​considering​ ​that​ ​a​ ​defendant​ ​has​ ​not​ ​previously​ ​served​ ​time​ ​in​ ​prison.​ ​Judge​
​Chambers​​frequently​​considers​​this​​argument​​out​​of​​the​​Huntington​​Division.​​.​​See​​United​
​States​​v.​​Baker,​​445​​F.3d​​987​​(7th​​Cir.​​2006)​​(affirming​​non-guideline​​sentence,​​justified​​in​
​part​​by​​judge’s​​finding​​that​​a​​imprisonment​​would​​mean​​more​​to​​this​​defendant​​than​​one​
​who​ ​has​ ​been​ ​imprisoned​ ​before,​ ​which​ ​resonated​​with​​the​​goal​​of​​“just​​punishment”​​in​
​Section 3553(a)(2)(A) and “adequate deterrence” in Section 3553(a)(2)(B)).​
​A​​probationary​​or​​home​​confinement​​sentence​​would​​reflect​​the​​seriousness​​of​​the​
​offense,​​promote​​respect​​for​​the​​law,​​and​​provide​​just​​punishment​​all​​while​​allowing​​her​​to​
​continue her employment and make restitution to the victims.​
​CONCLUSION​
​For​ ​the​ ​reasons​ ​stated​ ​above,​ ​the​ ​Defendant,​ ​Kisha​ ​Sutton,​ ​begs​ ​for​ ​mercy​ ​from​
​this Court and respectfully asks for a sentence of probation.​
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 416     Filed 11/24/25     Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 2756

​Respectfully submitted,​
​Kisha Sutton​
​By counsel,​
​s://​​Connor Robertson​
​Connor Robertson (WVSB 11460)​
​ROBERTSON LAW PLLC​
​2702 Main Street​
​Hurricane, WV 25526​
​(304) 557-1601​
​cdr@croblaw.com​
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 416     Filed 11/24/25     Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 2757

​IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT​
​FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA​
​UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,​
​PLAINTIFF,​
​V.​
​CASE NO.: 2:24-cr–00192-01​
​KISHA SUTTON,​
​DEFENDANT.​
​CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE​
​I,​​Connor​​D.​​Robertson,​​do​​hereby​​certify​​that​​on​​this​​24th​​day​​of​​November,​​2025,​
​I​​electronically​​filed​​the​​foregoing​​“DEFENDANT’S​​SENTENCING​​MEMORANDUM”​​with​​the​
​court​ ​using​ ​the​ ​CM/ECF​ ​system​ ​which​ ​will​ ​send​ ​notification​ ​of​ ​such​ ​filing​ ​to​ ​the​ ​below​
​counsel of record addressed to:​
​Jonathan Storage​
​Assistant United States Attorney​
​Jonathan.Storage@usdoj.gov​
​s://​​Connor Robertson​
​Connor Robertson (WVSB 11460)​
​ROBERTSON LAW PLLC​
​2702 Main Street​
​Hurricane, WV 25526​
​(304) 557-1601​
​cdr@croblaw.com​
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 416     Filed 11/24/25     Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 2758

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.wvsd.240497.416.0.pdf

Size

135,574 bytes

SHA-256

1772110c72a51c23ed07567f19a754632939d3fff8388811217547f7b956df05

Our copy

gov.uscourts.wvsd.240497.416.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)