Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 1998) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. BOOTH, POLSTON and HAWKES, JJ., 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that statute prohibiting conduct that obstruets or unreasonably interfere with free ingress or egress to and from public buildings was not impermissibly vague (B) holding in the context of the invocation of the right to counsel that interpretation is only required where the defendants words understood as ordinary people would understand them are ambiguous (C) holding that statute prohibiting affray was not impermissibly vague because ordinary people could understand the meaning of affray (D) recognizing that where the statutory language is not ambiguous  the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute must be given effect (E) holding that term unreasonably loud is not impermissibly vague
Output (English): holding that statute prohibiting conduct that obstruets or unreasonably interfere with free ingress or egress to and from public buildings was not impermissibly vague