Case: 21-10711 Document: 00516418434 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 3, 2022
No. 21-10711
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Joshua Leslie Hite,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-305-1
Before Davis, Smith, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Joshua Leslie Hite pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute a mixture and substance containing gamma hydroxybutyric acid.
The district court sentenced Hite below the applicable guidelines sentencing
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-10711 Document: 00516418434 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2022
No. 21-10711
range to 188 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
Hite timely appealed.
On appeal, Hite renews three sentencing claims he unsuccessfully
raised in the district court: (1) the district court erred in calculating the drug
quantity for purposes of establishing the base offense level, (2) the district
court erred in determining that he maintained a drug premises, and (3) the
district court erred in determining that he was not entitled to a mitigating-
role adjustment. As Hite contends, each of these issues involves a factual
determination that we review for clear error. United States v. Martinez, 921
F.3d 452, 483 (5th Cir. 2019); United States v. Guzman-Reyes, 853 F.3d 260,
263 (5th Cir. 2017); United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir.
2005). A factual finding is clearly erroneous if it is not “plausible in light of
the record read as a whole.” Betancourt, 422 F.3d at 245 (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
Hite’s counseled brief, which is not entitled to liberal construction,
fails to adequately brief the three issues he raises on appeal. See United States
v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2010); Beasley v. McCotter, 798
F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). Accordingly,
Hite has waived review of these claims, see Scroggins, 599 F.3d at 446-47, and
the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2