burglaries for the two burglaries that the government submitted charging documents and judgments that was altered from guilty pleas and that and those two are on pages forty two to forty five and forty six forty seven of the actual records the government submitted a charging document that information the government submitted a judgment but those two documents together did not indicate that mr cates was convicted as charged  information or as alleged in the information and in fact if you look at the judgment in those two convictions carefully it does not even cross reference to and information it doesn't say for example that he pled guilty to the information so we don't have a link we don't have a connection between the documents the government submitted for those two convictions it was our position that absent language in the judgment that somehow references the charging categorically a crime of violence and oregon law on this this court has in a very brief opinion and hans so ruled we believe that the court is going to be taking another look at that issue section of the cross references to the oregon broad definition of buildings so the what makes it burglary first degree burglary in oregon is it has to be  the broad definition of building a building well i'm wrong but if you look at the definition of drawing in the oregon burglary statute it incorporates my reference the definition of building which is overbroad because it includes non first and second degree are categorical match and if the store decides that cunningham was wrongly decided that i believe hunt is also wrongly decided because the two cases you know rely so closely on each other and again in looking at your argument that the first of you burglary incorporates the reference to a building and we know that building has said something like a building that is occupied so if it's occupied doesn't that make it a dwelling but another was you couldn't have a toll booth that was occupied by somebody i  in the scenario you describe you know the question is whether it's if you look at the full range of conduct in the oregon burglar statute first and second degree the question is that i'm under the categorical approach whether the full range of conduct allows someone to be because a first degree burglary statute which to which defines drawling as a building incorporates the definition of building in the oregon statute which broadly covers not only structure but also non structured it in your scenario i would say it would have to look at the documents and floyd the modified categorical approach in order to do it in order to determine whether the government as in this case would have why on the modified categorical approach which i would submit that they did not do because again that the first two convictions that was all the from guilty pleas the state of chad carrying a gun or a knife or maybe a sharpened screwdriver would sometimes be a very very tool i'd probably prefer to use that attempted or threatened physical injury section of the nine twenty four easy the answer to your question is no ninety seven that said wehling is described according to oregon revised statutes one six four two zero five subsection to quote means a building which regularly or intermittently is occupied by a person lodging varian at night whether or not the person is actually present now i've read here quite a few times i'm sure the court has to that seems to cover it and the indictment and the information that the judge can rely upon that said there was a sufficient nexus and that was very reasonable a plea that's when he was a juvenile but he got if you process rights and the second one he was an adult and that was a jury finding which is reflected in the judgment so in both instances he was found guilty of burglary or pled guilty to murder in the first degree in both in applied that's why suited what was in this case not an abstract judgment like you get in california but an actual judgment signed by the judge so that helps if you have some actually i don't need to rely on either birth or convictions i can  as you read the series of cases it's pretty clear that when you're a trial judge you want to look at those documents that are judicial documents that have to rely ability and credibility that give you the ability to make the finding judge a can make mistakes which she did it's interesting you know guilty pleas those documents may raise an inference that he pled guilty to the information but without language in the judgment saying as charged in as alleged in or even referring to the information that does not