[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-