PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-4464 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. REBECCA A. MORIELLO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cr-00187-MR-1) Argued: September 10, 2020 Decided: November 18, 2020 Before MOTZ, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Floyd wrote the opinion in which Judge Motz and Judge King joined. ARGUED: William Robinson Heroy, GOODMAN, CARR, LAUGHRUN, LEVINE & GREENE PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anthony Joseph Enright, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: William T. Stetzer, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. FLOYD, Circuit Judge: Appellant Beckie Moriello challenges her conviction under two administrative regulations for repeatedly refusing to comply with directions from an immigration judge and a courtroom bailiff to cease distracting conduct during an immigration proceeding. Moriello argues that the regulations are unconstitutionally vague, violate the nondelegation doctrine, and run afoul of the Tenth Amendment. She also challenges the district court’s interpretation of the regulations and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction. We reject each of Moriello’s challenges and conclude that the regulations are constitutional, the district court properly interpreted the regulations, and sufficient evidence supports Moriello’s conviction. I. A. Moriello works as an immigration attorney in Charlotte, North Carolina. On June 29, 2017, she appeared for a hearing on behalf of a client at the Charlotte Immigration Court. The Charlotte Immigration Court is a federal facility of the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) on property managed by the General Services Administration (GSA). A placard displayed near the entrance notifies visitors that federal regulations govern the facility. Two such regulations are relevant here. The first, 41 C.F.R. § 102-74.385 (the “Direction Regulation”), requires “[p]ersons in and on [the] property . . . [to] comply with official signs of a prohibitory, regulatory or directory nature and with the lawful direction 2 of Federal police officers and other authorized individuals.” The second, 41 C.F.R. § 102- 74.390 (the “Conduct Regulation”), prohibits “[a]ll persons entering in or on Federal property . . . from loitering, exhibiting disorderly conduct[,] or exhibiting other conduct on property that . . . [o]therwise impedes or disrupts the performance of official duties by Government employees.” Following the hearing on behalf of her own client, Moriello observed an unrelated asylum hearing over which Immigration Judge Barry J. Pettinato presided. Although the proceedings were closed, Moriello obtained permission to observe from the asylum- seeker’s attorney and sat in the courtroom gallery. A sign outside the courtroom stated: “Persons in EOIR space must turn off their electronic devices (e.g., smartphone, laptop). For clear and immediate business purposes only, attorneys and other representatives are exempt from this rule . . . .” J.A. 327. Protective Security Officer (PSO) Pinar Bridges was on duty as the uniformed bailiff in the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals