Whether the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals violated this Court's Fourth Amendment precedence and committed reversible error by endorsing a bright-line rule to answer the question of how a homeowner may ever properly revoke the implied license to enter one's property and approach the front door

question presented here is whether Georgia’s burglary statute from which Mr. Holmes was previously convicted is a non-generic, indivisible statute, and as such any violation can never categorically qualify as a “violent felony” for purposes of the ACCA. Cf United States v. Cornette, -F.3d --, 2019 WL 3417272 (4% Cir. July 30, 2019) (Georgia burglary statute is indivisible and cannot qualify as a “violent felony” under the ACCA), with United States v. Gundy, 842 F.3d 1156 (11" Cir. 2016) (Georgia burglary statute is divisible and can qualify as a “violent felony” under the ACCA), and Richardson v. United States, 890 F.3d 616 (6® Cir. 2018) (same). iti