(1) Herewith, then, the issue presented is 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. Asked differently, what is reasonably required of a private homeowner to successfully revoke any implied license or permission to enter one's property under the Fourth Amendment?

(2) As a second question, Mr. Holmes received an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (the ACCA) because he suffered from a 1997 Georgia state burglary conviction. In that there is a squarely-framed circuit split addressing this state statute between the Fourth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits, the 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.

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