Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): if anything, this may affect the scope of the remedy available to the plaintiff, but it does not indicate that relief is unavailable. 7 . As is evident in the cases cited by Sunflower itself, completion is a potentially relevant factor in the mootness analysis when it relates, not merely to the agency’s action, but rather to the actual project at issue. For example, in Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Management, 460 F.3d 13 (D.C.Cir.2006), plaintiff's case challenging the federal agency's plan relating to gathers of wild horses and burros was held to be moot because the gathers had already occurred and could not be undone; therefore, "it was impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever.” Id. at 22; see also Feldman v. Bomar, 518 F.3d 637, 643 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>) The instant case, however, differs 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a disability must be evaluated at the time of the challenged employment action (B) holding that the threat of injury was not speculative because the plaintiffs had been previously charged under the challenged statute (C) holding that a challenged action relating to the killing of feral pigs was moot because by the time the court heard the case the pigs had already been killed and plaintiffs had already suffered whatever harm could conceivably result from the challenged agency action (D) holding a claim seeking the humane removal of feral pigs from an island became moot once monitoring indicated that all pigs had been killed (E) holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action
Output (English): holding that the threat of injury was not speculative because the plaintiffs had been previously charged under the challenged statute