United States v. William D. Riggs

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. William D. Riggs

720 F.2d 1227, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 14836

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedDecember 2, 1983

Docket82-5494

StatusPublished

This text of 720 F.2d 1227 (United States v. William D. Riggs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. William D. Riggs, 720 F.2d 1227, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 14836 (11th Cir. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The United States says that appellant’s appeal is moot, and appellant says it is not. We are not able to determine from the record before us whether appellant will suffer adverse legal consequences that will cause his appeal not to be moot. See Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969).

We, therefore, REMAND the case to the district court for the limited purpose of consideration of mootness. The court may conduct an evidentiary hearing on the matter, if necessary. See e.g., Dupris v. U.S., 446 U.S. 980, 100 S.Ct. 2959, 64 L.Ed.2d 836 (1980); Vitek v. Jones, 436 U.S. 407, 98 S.Ct. 2276, 56 L.Ed.2d 381 (1978); Patterson v. Warner, 415 U.S. 303, 94 S.Ct. 1026, 39 L.Ed.2d 343 (1974); Spomer v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 514, 94 S.Ct. 685, 38 L.Ed.2d 694 (1974); Foley v. Blair & Co., 414 U.S. 212, 94 S.Ct. 405, 38 L.Ed.2d 422 (1973); City of Waco v. EPA, 620 F.2d 84 (5th Cir.1980). The district court’s findings shall be certified to this court as a supplemental record. Jurisdiction is retained for all other purposes.

REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The United States says that appellant’s appeal is moot, and appellant says it is not. We are not able to determine from the record before us whether appellant will suffer adverse legal consequences that will cause his appeal not to be moot. See Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969).

We, therefore, REMAND the case to the district court for the limited purpose of consideration of mootness. The court may conduct an evidentiary hearing on the matter, if necessary. See e.g., Dupris v. U.S., 446 U.S. 980, 100 S.Ct. 2959, 64 L.Ed.2d 836 (1980); Vitek v. Jones, 436 U.S. 407, 98 S.Ct. 2276, 56 L.Ed.2d 381 (1978); Patterson v. Warner, 415 U.S. 303, 94 S.Ct. 1026, 39 L.Ed.2d 343 (1974); Spomer v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 514, 94 S.Ct. 685, 38 L.Ed.2d 694 (1974); Foley v. Blair & Co., 414 U.S. 212, 94 S.Ct. 405, 38 L.Ed.2d 422 (1973); City of Waco v. EPA, 620 F.2d 84 (5th Cir.1980). The district court’s findings shall be certified to this court as a supplemental record. Jurisdiction is retained for all other purposes.

REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

720 F.2d 1227, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 14836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-william-d-riggs-ca11-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack