Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): “[t]he existence of a ‘public interest in having the legality of the practices settled ... militates against a mootness conclusion.’ ” Id. at 1517 (quoting United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632, 73 S.Ct. 894, 897, 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953)). This action is one of those extraordinary cases in which the complained of activity may be repeated and yet evade review. First, the cooperative agreements challenged in this action were of only one year’s duration. It is difficult to obtain judicial review during the duration of a one-year agreement. Second, we find that the Conservation Fund has met its burden of showing a sufficient likelihood that there will continue to be injurious actions relating to the official sanctioning of closed-season hunting. See Olagues, 797 F.2d at 1516 (<HOLDING>). See generally, Sample v. Johnson, 771 F.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action (B) holding that a sentencing decision will be affirmed if challenged factor is permissible and other factors are not challenged (C) holding that the burden is on the defendant when the validity of the warrant is challenged (D) holding that voluntary cessation of the challenged activity is insufficient to render a case moot if the legality of the challenged practices is still disputed because the official is free to return to his old ways  quoting wt grant co 345 us at 362 73 sct at 897 (E) holding that a physical or theoretical possibility that the government actor would repeat challenged actions is insufficient to demonstrate that the challenged action is capable of repetition
Output (English): holding that a physical or theoretical possibility that the government actor would repeat challenged actions is insufficient to demonstrate that the challenged action is capable of repetition