United States v. William D. Riggs, 720 F.2d 1227 (11th Cir. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. William D. Riggs, 720 F.2d 1227 (11th Cir. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
William D. RIGGS, Defendant-Appellant
82-5494.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Dec 2, 1983.
720 F.2d 1227
Quentin Till, court appointed, Jacksonville, Fla., for defendant-appellant., Robert W. Merkle, Curtis Fallgatter, Asst. U.S. Attys., Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Godbold, Per Curiam, Roney, Tjoflat.
Published
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.