but evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine, (see, e.g., Docket No. 149, at 45), but only point to case law pertaining to the "voluntary cessation” exception in their briefing on the issue, (see id. at 46). As their arguments seem to align more closely with the voluntary cessation doctrine, the court addresses only that exception to the mootness doctrine in detail. Suffice it to say that the result would more than likely be the same if Plaintiffs had properly raised an argument regarding the "capable of repetition, but evading review” exception. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ arguments would still fail on the likelihood of recurrence requirement which is equally applicable to the “capable of repetition” analysis. See Libertarian Party v. Dardenne, 595 F.3d 215, 217 (5th Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>). , 6 . Certain circuits have explicitly
holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action holding that unconstitutional government action can only be challenged by a person directly affected it cannot be challenged by one invoicing the rights of third parties holding that the burden is on the defendant when the validity of the warrant is challenged 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 holding that a sentencing decision will be affirmed if challenged factor is permissible and other factors are not challenged