PER CURIAM: Defendant White appeals from the 240-month sentence he received after the district court accepted his guilty plea to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(2) based on a predicate offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1). We DISMISS the appeal. White admits that “[t]he crux of [his] objection in the district court and complaint now on appeal is that his conduct did not constitute a crime of violence.... ” (emphasis added).

White asks this court to do the very'thing that the Supreme Court has instructed it not to do: look beyond the elements of the offense to the underlying facts to determine whether 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1) is categorically a crime of violence. In determining whether an offense is a crime of violence, this court looks “only to the statutory

definitions—i.e., the elements—of a defendant’s offense, and not to the particular facts underlying the convictions.” United States v. Buck, 847 F.3d 267, 274 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 2283, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013)), cert. denied sub. nom. Allen v. United States, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 2231, 198 L.Ed.2d 672 (2017). White’s brief is not entitled to liberal construction because he is represented by counsel. See Woodfox v. Cain, 609 F.3d 774, 792 (5th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, White has not adequately briefed the only issue he raises.

This court has recognized that failure to-adequately brief an issue on appeal can constitute waiver of the argument. N.W. Enters., Inc. v. City of Houston, 352 F.3d 162, 183 n.24 (5th Cir. 2003); see also Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); United States v. Martinez, 263 F.3d 436, 438 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Thames, 214 F.3d 608, 611 n.3 (5th Cir. 2000); L & A Contracting Co. v. S. Concrete Servs., 17 F.3d 106, 113 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Beaumont, 972 F.2d 553, 563 (5th Cir. 1992). This court finds that White has waived by inadequate briefing the only issue he raises. We DISMISS the appeal.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.