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?

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