state statutes of conviction meet Taylor’s requirements, but not to allow the government to establish which statutes the district court should consider. Compare Taylor, 495 U.S. at 602 (remanding where it was “not apparent ... from the sparse record ... which ... statutes were the bases for Taylor’s prior convictions”), with Rivera-Sanehez, 247 F.3d at 909 (directing the district court to conduct a Taylor analysis of the existing record where “[a] full evidentiary record” had already been developed). Our holding does not preclude this court from limiting the scope of the issues for which we remand, and thus limiting the district court’s consideration to evidence and arguments relevant to those issues. See, e.g., United States v. Pimentel, 34 F.3d 799, 800 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); see also Caterino, 29 F.3d at 1394 (holding
holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal holding that where it was clear that the court of appeals had limited the issues on resentencing to the one issue raised in the defendants first appeal the district court did not err in declining to consider other issues raised by the defendant on remand holding that subject to limited exceptions this court will not consider issues not presented to the district court but raised for the first time on appeal holding that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised later on appeal