In Re. Kouri-Perez v.
Case Date: 02/04/1998
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 98-1069
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 98-1069 IN RE: YAMIL H. KOURI-PEREZ, Petitioner. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Boudin, Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Benny Frankie Cerezo and Joaquin Monserrate-Matienzo on Petition _____________________ ____________________________ for Writ of Mandamus for petitioner. ____________________ February 3, 1998 ____________________ Per Curiam. Assuming, without deciding, that an order __________ denying change of venue would be subject to mandamus review, see In re Balsimo, 68 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995), there is ___ _____________ no reason to grant the writ here. Contrary to petitioner's argument, a fair reading of the order indicates that the district court considered the proper factors in determining the extent to which the community had been saturated by inflammatory pre-trial publicity about the case. See United States v. Rodriguez-Cardona, 924 F.2d 1148, ___ _____________ _________________ 1158 (1st Cir. 1991). The district court's legal analysis, findings, and conclusions in that regard reveal no error. Specifically, we perceive no error in the district court's focus on petitioner's opinion poll, which apparently indicated that less than twenty percent of the community had been biased to any degree by the pre-trial publicity. In the context of this mandamus review, we cannot say that the district court was required to focus any greater attention on any other aspect of the evidence or argument presented to it. The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. ______ -2- |