United States v. Ramess Nakhleh, 895 F.3d 838

Ramess Nakhleh went to a Highland Park post office to mail a package; employees required the box be taped and relabeled before acceptance.
After leaving to buy tape and sealing the box, he refused to touch or affix the shipping label, claiming it had "pollutant" on it; another customer affixed the label and the package was processed.
Nakhleh returned, became loud and belligerent at the counter, paced and photographed employees, and interfered with staff serving other customers; an employee called police.
When police asked about the package, Nakhleh twice said, "What if it’s a bomb?" The post office was evacuated and closed for ~2 hours while inspectors examined the package.
He was charged with violating 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(e) (criminalized by 18 U.S.C. § 3061(c)(4)(B)), convicted after a bench trial, sentenced to probation and fined; he appealed.

Issue	Nakhleh's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether § 232.1(e) "loud and unusual noise" must be judged by the speaker's usual volume/behavior	"Loud and unusual" must be measured relative to the particular person (how defendant normally speaks)	Phrase refers to noise/behavior "for the place"—i.e., unusual or loud for a post office and insofar as it impedes operations	Court held the phrase is for-the-place (post office), not for-the-person
Whether evidence supported conviction that defendant created a disturbance	Recording or testimony shows no unlawful disturbance; closure was an unreasonable reaction	Defendant paced, was loud/irate, impeded employees/customers; implied bomb threat made closure reasonable	Sufficient evidence: conduct impeded operations and threat justified evacuation
Whether district court erred by not considering defendant's contemporaneous audio recording	Failure to review the tape undermines credibility findings and the verdict	Tape covered only part of interactions; court credited witness testimony; any error harmless	Court held no reversible error; credibility findings deferred to trial court; error, if any, harmless
Whether the regulation is unconstitutionally vague or warrants lenity	Ambiguity requires constitutional avoidance or lenity in defendant's favor	Regulation is unambiguous when read in context; no need for avoidance or lenity canons	Court held regulation unambiguous; avoidance and lenity inapplicable

Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) (upheld disturbance ordinance as judged by impact on normal activities of a place)
United States v. Agront, 773 F.3d 192 (9th Cir. 2014) (interpreted similar VA regulation to cover conduct that disturbs facility operations)
Yates v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1074 (2015) (use of captions and textual context as interpretive aids)
Warger v. Shauers, 135 S. Ct. 521 (2014) (canon of constitutional avoidance applies only where ambiguity exists)
Ocasio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1423 (2016) (rule of lenity applies only when grievous statutory ambiguity persists)
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (citations on using textual context and interpretive canons)
United States v. Wright, 747 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2014) (appellate deference to district court credibility determinations)