Wright

facts establish venue, the “usual test for insufficiency of evidence” applies. See

United States v. Moran-Garcia, 966 F.3d 966, 969‒70 (9th Cir. 2020).

Wright argues that the Government did not present any evidence that

connected her to Arizona to properly satisfy venue under 18 U.S.C. § 1956.1 As

relevant here, the statute authorizes venue in any district “where an act in furtherance

of the . . . conspiracy took place.” 18 U.S.C. § 1956(i)(2). This rule applies even if

“an overt act is not a required element of the conspiracy offense.” Whitfield v. United

States, 543 U.S. 209, 218 (2005) (analyzing 18 U.S.C. § 1956(i)). The Government

must prove venue by a preponderance of the evidence. Moran-Garcia, 966 F.3d at

1 The Government concedes that the venue defect was not facially apparent and that Wright’s venue challenge was timely. See United States v. Ghanem, 993 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2021) (good cause exists for waiting to raise a venue challenge until a Rule 29 motion if there is no venue defect apparent on the face of the indictment).

23-2125 969.

We conclude that a rational juror could have found that it was more likely…