In re: Bramson v.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-622
In Re: MARTIN BRAMSON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-92-318-JFM)
Submitted: December 26, 1996 Decided: February 18, 1997
Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Martin Bramson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Martin Bramson petitions this court for a Writ of Mandamus di-
recting the district court to dismiss a pending federal indictment
against him, or appoint counsel to advance his previously denied
motion to dismiss the indictment. A party seeking mandamus relief
must show that he has no other means of relief and that his right
to the relief he seeks is "clear and indisputable." In re Beard,
811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). We first note that, as a fugi-
tive from justice who is not in the custody of any official of this
country, but is currently incarcerated in a Liechtenstein prison,
it is not "clear and indisputable" that Bramson has the right to
even request relief in this court. See Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396
U.S. 365, 366 (1970).
In any event, however, we reject the underlying basis for
Bramson's request for mandamus reliefCthat his right to a speedy
trial has been violated. The delay in bringing Bramson to trial is
clearly primarily attributable to his own decision to flee this
country over four years ago after he was indicted on a variety of
federal charges. See United States v. Mitchell, 957 F.2d 465, 469
(7th Cir. 1992). He admits that he is not being held in Liechten-
stein for any violation of the laws of that principality, but
rather pursuant to that country's extradition treaty with the
United States for violations of this country's laws. He therefore
can presumably return to this country and stand trial of his own
volition at any time. Because Bramson is responsible for the delay
of his trial, his Constitutional right to a speedy trial has not
2
been violated. Moreover, delays attributable to the unavailability
of a defendant are excluded from consideration under the Federal
Speedy Trial Act of 1974. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(3)(A) (1994).
Bramson therefore cannot establish any violation of that Act.
Accordingly, the petition for a Writ of Mandamus is denied.
PETITION DENIED
3