In re: Richard J. Koonce, Iii

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1568
In re: RICHARD J. KOONCE, III,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. (3:24-cr-00001-NKM-JCH-1)
Submitted: June 17, 2025 Decided: July 15, 2025
Before GREGORY and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard J. Koonce, III, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Richard J. Koonce, III, petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing
the district court to rule on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We conclude that
Koonce is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown,
LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for
appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Further,
mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought
and “has no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907
F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).
The relief sought by Koonce is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly,
we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 2 of 2 --