Passodelis argued that venue in the Middle District was improper.  In response to the motion to transfer, the government argued that venue in the Middle District was indeed proper since that was where the Shapp for President Committee had its headquarters and deposited the contributions which it received.  Although the district court denied Passodelis's motion, the court stated that "(t)he United States must prove at trial, as it has alleged in the complaint, that crimes were committed by the Defendant in the Middle District of Pennsylvania."  App. at 38a.  Passodelis now argues before this court, as he argued in a post-trial motion before the district court, that the government failed to prove that crimes were committed by Passodelis in the Middle District.

II

5
The question ofidentified, it appears from the record that he was either part of the Shapp for President Committee or was connected with Shapp in some other capacity.  See, e. g., Record at 21-22, 32-33.  Only if Heyison was Passodelis's agent could any act of Heyison's in the Middle District be attributed to Passodelis.  However, there are no facts in the record which will support the conclusion that Heyison was an agent of Passodelis's.  In fact, if anything, it would appear that if Heyison received the checks in the Western District from Passodelis, he did so in his capacity as an agent of the Shapp for President Committee.  Accordingly, if Heyison received the checks in the Western District, the crimes were complete in the Western