i'm not opposed to standing on the shoulders of giants and so i'm not going to repeat everything that mr tice did buy i'm going to try to build on it slightly it is our position that there are three locations within the definition of dwelling that are broader than the locations of generic burglary i think there's been extensive discussion about mobile homes trailers i believe those to be essentially over lapping terms one man's mobile some way unless of course the state judiciary has told us not to do it so we've got this definition of it welling in the state statute part am which includes ten vehicle other enclosed space intended for human habitation and part b of which b is limited to the residential burglary statute deals with house apartment mobile home etc why doesn't one read the second as different from the first if you say motions together and everything mean the same thing you just lost the whole purpose of drafting statutes like those in separate sections we are on our i am actually not suggesting that the whole thing should be mushed together i'm suggesting that the court would look specifically at two dash six b which is the definition of dwelling in the context that we're dealing with the resident or the residential burglary statute as opposed to the general  and in one of the things that the court mentioned with respect to mobile homes was this idea that all homes are are movable i would think by that by that assessment there is no such thing as a fixed truck sure the technology is such that just about any building can be moved they can move in a lighthouse on cape hatteras island i don't think that that would be considered a movable i don't think was castle's of the move to arizona  t you're not suggesting that this means there is no such thing as burglary because in the end everything is movable and indeed in the end the proton itself will decay and everything will turn back to dust right here and i guess what i'm trying to suggest is that a mobile home is not a building or structure as that within why not because it is always just in my understanding a mobile home is a pre fabricated house which is towed on a big rig to the site rather than built on the site and then it's taken off the towel put on the ground attach to you televisa and use just like house where i would agree that it could be but the distinction between a mobile home and a regular home is that a mobile home is actually on wheels and no mobile home after it is no mobile i was never built a mobile home was put up on the back of a semi tractor then taken off put on the ground and it states there are no wheels on a mobile there are wheels on the trailer at least potentially ok my my understanding it sounds like i'm honestly not that familiar with the the minutia but my understanding is that a mobile home and perhaps maybe i'm talking about a trailer but that a trailer actually has a hitch it has wheels on it and something called a tom and that people can live in and on a trigger ok so so  i would suggest to you that a trailer you know this is why we are asking or least i'm asking for state cases if you have a state case which says that mobile home instead of meaning the things you see in mobile home parks where they're all on the ground and it's just a residential subdivision of prefabricated house if you have a state case saying that it also mobile home also means something like justice thomas was winnebago even though that looks like a vehicle under a i would love to see that that would be a big boost for you your honor and there's no doubt i would love to present that to you i do think though i and i have spent more time trying to find that case and i probably should of  one but your honor i do think it's important that this court when it was looking at a different illinois statute the illinois burglary statute in the case of haney noted that it did not fall within the generic definition or the generic definition locations of burglary specifically said because it includes vehicles such as house trailers watercraft aircraft and motor vehicles so i believe that haney indicates this court considers house trailers to be a vehicle based upon its decision in haney but your honor i think you know the court given the questions it has about mobile homes and trailers there's a third location in the dwelling definition that i believe would be difficult to write any more broadly which is to say a good welling is other living quarters were a person resides or intends to reside within a reasonable period of time and those words have meaning we can't just ignore that they're there and so i think it's a fair question the say well what would other living quarters be and you don't have to use your imagination people live in tents people live on houseboats but people living are then we're just mushing a and b together a begins except as provided in b it includes attempt a vehicle right but you just want us to wrap it all up in one you know your own i guess what i'm saying is i mean the language other living quarters has meaning in section b i don't view section a as a limitless reasonably as something other than a town well to me i would think that of all the right all due respect respectfully it would seem to me when you read the definition of dwelling it may be an oversimplification but it seems to say they want any place a person lives to come within the definition of wellington and so it would not seem to make sense to suggest that somehow they don't want to cover people who live in tents or you know what if you live in a houseboat couldn't carry a i suppose the ingenuity of judges is very great so has any judge in illinois understood be the the definition of dwelling for the residential burglary statute to include entry into what and where people live you're on are already able where people live right in so no they haven't and i was worried although the court hasn't said the opinion but i know the government references duwayne as alvarez in its brief and i would just suggest that if you look at the analysis that disproving court undertook and matheson i believe this court in haney i don't think this court in haney and looking at the residential burglary statute look to illinois cases where burglary was charged to a car and certainly the supreme court in deciding mathis didn't reference any state court opinion that had ever referenced burglary to one of those locations outside the generic definition and so i think this case is distinguishable from cases like doing is alvarez where there is a necessity to reference state court rulings where this alternate location outside the scope is has been charged and the question surely can't be well it doesn't come within the ambit of the statute because a prosecutor wouldn't charge it i mean that's not the analysis of the court in mathis makes it clear that you take this statute and put it side by side the generic definition and based upon that statute side by side the generic definition of burglary a set forth and tailor and if you do that we've spoken about the three locations that would arguably obviously seem to be outside of the generic definition  thing that the government doesn't address in its brief is what are other living orders and surely it can't be that or if the illinois supreme illinois courts haven't told us what what other living quarters are there is no such thing so remove reserved the news is robert you can tell what i'm going to ask do you know any cases or three predecessors have been found i would love to see them your honor and try to speculate what illinois is doing with this language be better to see what they're doing and i agree and much like mr schultz i also did a deep dive into illinois state law to try and find anything that supported our position or was contrary to our position that a mobile home or a trailer or other living quarters  vengeance be as it relates to building or structure mathis talks about when you're deciding between means and elements that to make that distinction and to look to authoritative sources of state law to the state supreme court suggest that that's a worthy pursuit in terms of deciding whether or not the locations contain within our buildings on two occasions the illinois supreme court and another appellate court has referenced them as buildings people versus campbell clear as day it says that the elements of residence at residential burglary are entry into a building that was in one thousand nine hundred two and an appellate court in illinois as recently as two thousand and eleven reiterated that it requires entry into a building again and people versus taylor when they were discussing whether vehicle burglary was a lesser included offense they held that it was not because it required entry into a vehicle as a post to a building submit that sources of illinois state law shed light and instruct us that the locations contained within the dwelling definition are in fact buildings and as this court has pointed out that in terms of reading all these terms together in a list that mobile home and trailer that trail the concept of it being maybe a smaller version of a mobile home i think that spot on and i think that that's evident in actually one of the cases  cites to in his brief people versus torres where that court was kind of using mobile home and trailer interchangeably so it would appear that court aligns those two locations and locations as being similar and therefore again that falls within the definition of building and the last point i would just like to make for the court is as it relates to doing as alvarez and it states clearly that to find a state statute creates a crime outside of the generic definition of a listed crime and a federal statute requires more than application of legal imagination it requires a realistic probability not a theoretical possibility that the state would apply its jack shoot to conduct that falls outside the generic definition of a crime so honor as it relates to this inquiry of thirty five years of illinois jurisprudence on the residential burglary statute and not being able to find a single case that discusses whether or not these locations are buildings or not i submit us that because you can't point to a case where it shows that there are locations outside of the generic definition that in fact these are buildings and so in conclusion we would just ask that this court