N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JOHNNY M . LAW R ENC E,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 18-10071

D.C . No. 3:17-c v-00097-M M D-1 M E M O RANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da M iranda M . Du, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 11, 2019 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M c K EOW

N, W . FLETC HER , a

nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. On June 28, 2016, Johnny La wre nc e re c e ive d a

c ita tion for disorderly c onduc t in viola

tion of 41 C .F.R . § 102-74.390 a fte r thre ate n ing a Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion e m ploy e e . M a gistra

te Judge W illia

m G. C obb found La

wre nc e guilty a fte r a two da y be n c h tria l. As a

uthoriz e d by

18 U.S.C . § 3402, La

wre nc e 

# FIL ED MAR 04 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.a

ppe a le d to the distric t c ourt, whic h a ffirm e d the c onvic tion. On a p p e a l be fore this c ourt, La wre nc e argue s tha

t 41 C .F.R . § 102-74.390 is void for va gue ne ss a nd tha t he did not re c e ive a de quate notic e of the c ha rge a ga inst him . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo thec onstitutiona lity of a n a ge nc y ’ s re gula

tion, Unite d State s v . K e lly , 874 F.3d 1037, 1046 (9th C ir. 2017), inc luding whe t he r a re gula tion is void for va

gue ne ss, Unite d State

s v . Szabo , 760 F.3d 997, 1001 (9th C ir. 2014). W e “ re vie wde novo thedistric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tations of sta t ute s a nd re gula tions.” Santiago v . Rumsfe l d , 425 F.3d 549, 556 n.5 (9th C ir. 2005). W e re vie w de novo the de nia l of a m otion to dism

i ss a c ha rging instrum e nt. Se e Unite d State s v . W iggan , 700 F.3d 1204, 1210 (9th C ir. 2012). Lawre nc e argue s tha

t 41 C .F.R . § 102-74.390 is void for va gue ne ss both fa c i a lly and a s a

p plie d. Tha

t re gula tion, whic h is e ntitle d “ Wh at is thepolic y c onc e rning disturba

nc e s? ,” sta

te s: All pe rsons e nte ring in or on Fe de ra l prope rty are prohibite d

from loite ring, e xhibiting disorde

rly c onduc t or e xhibiting othe r c onduc t on prope rty

tha t- (a ) C re a t e s loud or unusua l noise or a

nuisa nc e ; (b) Unre a sona

bly obstruc ts the usua l use of e ntra

n c e s, foy e rs, lobbie s, c orridors, offic e s, e le vators, sta irwa y s, or pa rking lots; (c ) Othe rwise im pe de s or disrupts the pe rform anc e of offic ia l dutie s by Gove rnm e nt e m

ploy e e s; or (d) Pre ve nts the ge ne ra l public from

obta ining thea dm inistra

tive se rvic e s provide d on the prope rty in a tim e ly m anne r. 2Id . La

wre nc e ’ s va gue ne ss c ha lle nge s pre suppose that the re gula

tion c rim ina liz e s

“ disorde rly

c onduc t ” a s a

n unde fine d offe nse and tha t subse c tions (a ) through (d) de fine only

the a c tion of “ e xhibiting othe r c onduc t.” In c o ntra s t, the gove rnm e nt argue s tha

t subse c tions (a ) through (d) of there gula tion a lso de fine the te rm

“ disorde rly

c onduc t .” Unde r the doc trine of c onstitutiona l a voida n c e , we m ay

a dopt the gove rnm e nt’ s inte rpre tat ion if La wre nc e ’ s inte rpre tation m ay re nde r 41 C .F.R . § 102-74.390 unc onstitutiona lly va gue an d we de te rm ine the gove rnm e nt’ s inte rpre tation to bere a sona ble . Unite d

State s v . Rume ly , 345 U.S. 41, 45 (1953) (“ [T] he princ iple of c onstitutiona l a djudic ation [] m ake s it de c isive in the c hoic e of fa ir a lte rnative s tha

t one c onstruc tion m a

y ra ise se rious c o nstitutiona l que s tions avoide d by

anothe r.” ). W e hold tha

t La wre nc e ’ s inte rpre tat ion ra ise s se rious va gue ne ss c onc e rns, a

nd tha t the gove rnm e n t’ s inte rpre tation is re a s ona b le .

“ Whe n se ve ra l words a

re followe d by

a c la u se whic h is a

pplic a b le a s m uc h to the first a nd othe r words a s to the la st, the natura l c onstruc tion of thela ngua ge de m ands tha

t the c la use be re a d

a s a pplic a b le to a ll.” Paroline

v . Unite d State

s , 572 U.S. 434, 447 (2014) (c iting Porto Ric o Railw ay , Light &Pow e r C

o. v . Mor , 253 U.S. 345, 348 (1920)). Here , the disjunc tive list of m o difie rs e num e ra te d in subse c tions (a ) through (d) a re a pplic a ble to the thre e e num e rate d offe nse s of 3“ loite ring,” “ d i sorde rly c onduc t ,” and “ othe r c onduc t.” Thus, unde r the doc trine of c onstitutiona

l a voida nc e , we de c line to e m

bra c e La wre nc e ’ s inte rpre tation of 41 C . F.R . § 102-74.390. Lawre nc e argue s tha

t he re c e ive d c onstitutiona lly ina de quate notic e of the c rim e c ha rge d. B e c a

use Lawre nc e wa s c ha

rge d with a

pe tty offe nse , his c ita

tion notic e wa s a suffic ie nt c ha rging doc um e nt unde r Fe d. R . C rim . P. 58(b)(1) (“ The tria l of a pe tty offe nse m ay

[] proc e e d on a

c ita tion or viola

tion notic e .” ). Howe ve r, La

wre nc e argue s tha

t the c ita tion did not c onta in e nough inform ation to provide him

with a d e quate notic e of the c ha rge a ga inst him . In Unite d State s v . Rojo , 727 F.2d 1415 (9th C ir. 1983), we he ld tha t a c ita tion “ fa il[e d] to provide suffic i e nt notic e of the e le m e nts a nd fa c ts of the pe nding c ha rge s.” Id. at 1418. Howe ve r, the c ita

t ion in Rojo liste d only

the sta tute viola te d without spe c ify ing a re le va nt subse c tion a

n d without inc luding “ a

ny othe r fa c ts, suc h a s date , tim e or loc ation.” Id . He re , the c ita tion inc lude d the phra se “ disorde rly c onduc t” a s we ll a s the d a te , tim e , a

nd loc a tion of theinc ide nt, a nd La wre nc e re c e ive d a

“ State m e nt of Proba ble C a use ” prior to tria l de ta iling the fa c tua l ba sis of thec ha rge . In the c onte xt of a

pe tty offe nse , this inform ation suffic e s for c onstitutiona l ly a de quate notic e . AFFIRM E D . 4