Page:United States v. Victor J. Stitt, II.pdf/11

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Cite as: 586 U. S. ___ (2018)
9

Opinion of the Court

burglary statute is too broad to count as generic burglary for a different reason, namely, because it also covers burglary of “a vehicle… [i]n which any person lives.” See supra, at 3. Sims adds that these words might cover a car in which a homeless person occasionally sleeps. Sims’ argument rests in part upon state law, and the lower courts have not considered it. As “we are a court of review, not of first view,” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005), we remand the Arkansas case to the lower courts for further proceedings. Those courts remain free to determine whether Sims properly presented the argument and to decide the merits, if appropriate.

We reverse the judgment of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. We vacate the judgment of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.