ORDER

KRISTINE G. BAKER, District Judge.

Before the Court are defendant Shanetella Peterson's motion for intra-district change of venue (change of division) and amended motion for intra-district change of venue (change of division) (Dkt. Nos. 249, 250). The government has filed a response and a supplemental response in opposition to the amended motion (Dkt. Nos. 253, 276).

Ms. Peterson is charged with one count of violating 7 U.S.C. § 2024 for allegedly engaging in the unauthorized use, transfer, acquisition, alteration, or possession of benefits, by purportedly exchanging $129.47 in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Plan benefits for approximately $80.00 in cash (Dkt. No. 250, ¶ 3). The alleged violation occurred on or about October 9, 2013, in Helena-West Helena, Arkansas (Id.). This matter currently is set for trial in the Western Division of the Eastern District of Arkansas in Little Rock. Ms. Peterson is a resident of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas, which is in the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Ms. Peterson argues that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(b), a transfer of venue in this case is warranted. Rule 21(b) states that "[u]pon the defendant's motion, the court may transfer the proceeding, or one or more counts, against that defendant to another district for the convenience of the parties, any victim, and the witnesses, and in the interest of justice." F.R.C.P. 21(b). Ms. Peterson contends that she does not own or have access to an automobile and that it is impossible for her to travel from the Eastern Division to the Western Division because there is no public transportation option (Dkt. No. 250, ¶ 4). She represents that her plea and arraignment were conducted via video conferencing software (Id.). Ms. Peterson further states that "[t]ransfer is in the interest of justice in this case, as [the Eastern Division] will be more convenient to both the witnesses and parties and result in a significant saving of judicial and Government resources. It will also ensure that Ms. Peterson is able to timely attend and participate in her trial and will have overnight lodging if the trial lasts longer than one day." (Id., ¶ 6).

In the government's response in opposition, it notes that "Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 18 was amended in 1966 to eliminate the requirement that the prosecution be in a division in which the offense was committed, vesting discretion in the court to fix the place of trial at any place within the district." (Dkt. No. 253, at 1). The government also states that, by long-standing policy in the Eastern District of Arkansas, the place of trial has been fixed as the Western Division for all criminal cases. There is no constitutional right to a trial within a certain division of a judicial district. United States v. Brown, 535 F.2d 424 (8th Cir. 1976). The government disagrees with Ms. Peterson's assertion that a transfer to the Western Division would decrease the Court's resources and be most convenient for the parties, as the Court, the United States Attorney's office staff and attorneys, and any defendants no longer residing in Helena-West Helena would have to relocate. The government also argues that the United States Courthouse in Helena is limited in its courtroom space and technical attributes, making transfer to that division impractical in this case. Ms. Peterson is joined for trial with several other defendants, and no motion for severance has been filed or granted. The government indicates that, if such a motion were filed, the government would oppose it. In addition, in the government's supplemental response to the motion, it notes that Ms. Peterson is transitioning later this week from an in-patient facility to a chemical-free living facility in Searcy, Arkansas (Dkt. No. 276, at 1). The government represents that "Ms. Peterson will remain at that facility until at least mid-August, and possibly longer, depending on the facility's and the Pretrial Services Officer's evaluation of her progress." (Id.) The Court notes that Searcy is closer to Little Rock than it is to Helena-West Helena, and the government argues that the new location of the defendant counteracts Ms. Peterson's original argument that her location justified an intra-district transfer of venue.

The Court has fully considered the motion and the response and supplemental response and denies the amended motion (Dkt. No. 250), and the Court also denies the original motion as moot (Dkt. No. 249). The trial in this matter remains scheduled at 9:30 a.m. the week of Monday, August 22, 2016, in Little Rock, Arkansas. Counsel are to be present 30 minutes prior to trial and are directed to submit jury instructions electronically to the Court at kgbchambers@ared.uscourts.gov on or before August 8, 2016.

So ordered.