
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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                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-
