Court Opinion

ID: 2965156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:36:19.833903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:13.535388
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-