. Buruji Kashamu, fugitive for nearly two decades alleged leader heroin importing conspiracy inspired hit show “Orange is New Black,” appears before us for third time in but through counsel because is unwilling risk being States, fact never life States. See “Man Who Inspired Orange New Black Elected Senator Nigeria” *2 ‐ 1004 Guardian , Apr. 16, 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/ world/2015/apr/16/alleged ‐ drug ‐ kingpin ‐ wanted ‐ us ‐ elected senator nigeria (visited Jan. 2017, were the other web sites cited this opinion). grand jury the Northern District Illinois

had charged him thirteen others conspiracy to im port heroin, violation 963. Eleven co conspirators pleaded guilty, one other was convicted after trial. But Kashamu, refusing to appear (which would have required his presence the United States), insisted that the authorities were trying to pin crimes committed his dead brother—who said bore striking resemblance to him—on him. Kashamu’s latest attempt to avoid

swering the still pending charges that the Justice Depart ment brought against him. When surfaced England six months after his indictment Justice Department lawyers commenced what turned out be four year legal battle seeking his extradition United States—unsuccessfully. Later Kashamu moved dismiss American indictment that doctrine collateral estoppel barred his prosecution United States. We denied motion, explaining English magistrate’s refusal authorize extradition States had based simply Justice Department’s inability convince judge it was seeking extradite was indeed Kashamu. Kashamu F.3d (7th Cir. 2011). Because magistrate had not ruled Kashamu’s guilt innocence refusal extradite did preclude further efforts prosecute him. Id. at 688.

Three years later Kashamu again appeared before the court, this time petitioning for a writ of mandamus to dis ‐ miss indictment on speedy trial grounds. Again we turned him down, this time that he had for ‐ feited any speedy trial right remaining a fugitive, and noting that if “he wants to fight he only to fly Lagos to Chicago.” re Kashamu F.3d (7th Cir. 2014).

Rather than do that, Kashamu devised a new strategy. He filed court Chicago in April 2015— one month after his election to Nigerian Senate—asking “enjoin his abduction abroad U.S. authori ‐ ties.” He claimed have been tipped off that authori ‐ ties, colluding with his political rivals, were planning ab ‐ duct him Nigeria drag him Chicago stand trial before could be sworn into office as Nigerian senator. He relied provision of Mansfield Amendment, 2291(c)(1), states “no officer employee of States may directly effect an arrest any for eign country part any foreign police action with respect narcotics control efforts.”

A month after filing suit, Kashamu amended complaint allege his fear abduction had nearly come true: agents Nigeria’s National Drug Law Enforce ment Agency, along two white men who Kashamu rea sons must have operatives Drug Enforcement Administration, surrounded his Lagos resi dence tried arrest him “invalid provisional warrant.” But, complaint continues, “refused sur render,” so agents “laid siege … keeping pris oner own home for six days, until Nigerian federal *4 4 16 1004 court ordered them cease their activities and depart from premises.” He speculates U.S. agents directed and coordinated entire affair, U.S. authorities still are trying extradite him. absence of injunctive relief, maintains, he is vulnerable “a very real threat of ab ‐ duction by U.S. authorities.”

The dismissed Kashamu’s complaint Mansfield Amendment does not create a private right of action. Although statute forbids federal employees arrest a foreign country narcot ics Supreme Court has repeatedly construed statutes similar Mansfield Amendment directives federal agencies their employees (i.e., “behave your selves,” or face disciplinary action) rather than “as confer ral of right sue” agencies their employees. See, e.g., Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, 135 S. Ct. (2015); Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001); Thomp son Thompson, U.S. (1981); California v. Sierra Club, U.S. (1981).

Kashamu’s further lacks merit because it confuses an attempt U.S. government agents arrest provisional warrant (a first step toward possible extradition) coordination local law enforcement, with an at tempted abduction. The Mansfield Amendment explicit prohibiting an employee States, provided approval chief mission, from “being when foreign officers are effecting an arrest assisting foreign officers who are effecting an arrest.” 2291(c)(2). conduct which Kasha mu complains—that agents actively participated attempt Nigerian agents arrest him—was thus lawful.

For all these reasons, decision A FFIRMED .