United States v. Puch, 3:19-cr-00130

Lawrence Puch, a Vietnam veteran with a 100% VA disability rating for PTSD, attended a February 28, 2018 appointment at the Dayton VA Medical Center.
During the exam Puch demanded tramadol, became agitated, and called the treating nurse Dr. Donna Beaven a “fucking idiot” and a “fucking nigger,” then walked out.
Dr. Beaven testified she felt threatened, exited her exam room, called the police, and that the incident disrupted her ability to provide care that day.
VA Police responded but did not locate Puch; VA disruptive-behavior committee later issued an administrative warning (no formal law-enforcement sanction).
Magistrate Judge Newman conducted a three-day bench trial, convicted Puch of disorderly conduct under 38 C.F.R. § 1.218(b)(11), and sentenced him to six months unsupervised probation.
Puch appealed to the district court arguing inadequate notice of the charge, insufficiency of the evidence, and a First Amendment violation; the district court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of notice of charge	Gov't: Violation Notice and Probable Cause Statement provided sufficient notice and the citation to penalty provision is adequate under Williams.	Puch: Was not given constitutionally adequate notice of the charge; incorporated trial-court briefing.	Court: Notice was adequate; Puch either waived or failed to show constitutional deficiency.
Sufficiency of the evidence to support disorderly conduct conviction	Gov't: Puch’s abusive language disrupted VA operations, caused nurse to call police, and impeded care—satisfying §1.218(b)(11).	Puch: Name-calling alone could not meet the regulation’s threshold for disorderly conduct.	Court: Viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
First Amendment challenge	Gov't: Regulation is constitutional as applied; VA facilities are nonpublic forums so restrictions are reasonable and viewpoint neutral.	Puch: His speech was mere name-calling (no threat) protected by the First Amendment.	Court: Regulation is viewpoint neutral and reasonable for a nonpublic forum (VA hospital); conviction did not violate the First Amendment.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency review: evidence must permit any rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
United States v. Evans, 581 F.3d 333 (6th Cir. 2009) (standard of review on appeal from magistrate judge: legal issues de novo, factual findings for clear error)
United States v. Fekete, 535 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2008) (defendant bears heavy burden on insufficiency challenge)
United States v. Williams, 892 F.2d 1044 (6th Cir. 1990) (VA regulation forbids conduct that disturbs routine operations; citation to penalty provision can be sufficient notice)
United States v. Szabo, 760 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2014) (VA medical facilities are nonpublic forums; exclusion of disruptive speakers is permissible)
United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (1990) (forum analysis: nonpublic-forum restrictions judged for reasonableness and viewpoint neutrality)
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) (First Amendment is not absolute; certain categories of speech may be restricted)