Whether Oregon first-degree burglary remains categorically broader than generic burglary after Stitt because it covers non-permanent and mobile structures adapted for carrying on business therein

QUESTION PRESENTED In United States v. Stitt, this Court held that generic burglary extends to burglaries of some non-permanent and mobile structures; specifically, those that are “customarily used or adapted for overnight accommodation.” 139 S. Ct. 399, 406-07 (2019). Oregon first-degree burglary, by contrast, covers a broader range of non-permanent and mobile structures; those “adapted for overnight accommodation of persons or for carrying on business therein.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.205(1) (emphasis added); Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.225. The question presented here involves the low standard for issuance of a certificate of appealability: Could reasonable jurists debate whether, after Stitt, Oregon first-degree burglary remains categorically broader than generic burglary because the state offense covers non-permanent and mobile structures “adapted . . . for carrying on business therein,” Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.205(1), whereas Stitt’s ruling only reached structures customarily used or adapted for overnight accommodation?