Opinion ID: 613759
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Disorderly Conduct

Text: Under Pennsylvania law, “[a] person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, 2 The Magistrate Judge had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3401. The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3231 and 3402. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See United States v. Rosario, 118 F.3d 160, 162 (3d Cir. 1997). With respect to the conviction, we review the factual findings of the Magistrate Judge for clear error and exercise plenary review of its legal determinations. United States v. Marcavage, 609 F.3d 264, 271 (3d Cir. 2010). Under a clear error standard, we may not reverse if the court’s “account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985). We also view the facts in the light most favorable to the government. Marcavage, 609 F.3d at 269 n.1. As to the restitution that was ordered, “[w]e exercise plenary review over whether an award of restitution is permitted under law, but we review specific awards for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Graham, 72 F.3d 352, 355 (3d Cir. 1995). 4 he: engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior.” 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 5503(a)(1). The focus is on the defendant’s behavior, not the public impact of that behavior. Commonwealth v. Fedorek, 946 A.2d 93, 101 (Pa. 2008). The statute defines “public” as “affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access,” including “places of business” and “any premises which are open to the public.” 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 5503(c). For there to be “public inconvenience,” there need not be multiple persons affected by the conduct – one affected person will suffice. See Fedorek, 946 A.2d at 100 (holding that “when an offender engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior in a public arena, even when that conduct is directed at only one other person, the offender may be subject to conviction for disorderly conduct” (original emphasis)). A person has the state of mind necessary to commit disorderly conduct when he acts with a reckless disregard for the risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, regardless of whether he specifically intends to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm. Commonwealth v. Maerz, 879 A.2d 1267, 1269 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we are satisfied that there was sufficient evidence for the Magistrate Judge to find Ulrich guilty of disorderly conduct. Ulrich threatened to enter and then did enter a restricted area in a public building, despite Bonsall’s protestations. In the process, his loud, tumultuous conduct caused violent contact with Bonsall. The evidence further supports the conclusion that he committed those acts with, at a minimum, reckless disregard for 5 whether he was creating a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, and alarm. Accordingly, we will affirm the conviction.