IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20547

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CRYSTAL WASHINGTON, also known as Crystal Bureau,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-660-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Former Texas Department of Criminal Justice parole officer Crystal 

Washington appeals her convictions for conspiracy to possess with the intent 

to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and for conspiracy to 

commit extortion under the color of official right and extortion under the color 

of official right, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1915(a). She argues that the 

evidence was insufficient to support each count of conviction. Because 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 19, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-20547 Document: 00513236170 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2015
No. 14-20547

2

Washington did not renew her motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of 

the evidence, review is limited to plain error, requiring her to show a clear or 

obvious error affecting her substantial rights. United States v. Delgado, 672 

F.3d 320, 329-32 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Under this test, there must be a 

manifest miscarriage of justice, meaning that the record must be devoid of 

evidence of guilt or that the evidence is so tenuous as to render the verdict 

shocking. Id. at 330-31. The evidence, and all inferences therefrom, are 

reviewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. United States v. Rose, 587 

F.3d 695, 702 (5th Cir. 2009).

Washington fails to meet this heavy burden. She first contends that the 

Government did not prove that there was an express or implied agreement 

between her and Abel Ramirez, a parolee under her supervision, and that, 

although she may have been aware of his drug dealing, her knowledge did not 

amount to a tacit agreement allowing him to continue. The argument is 

unpersuasive as the trial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the 

jury’s verdict, showed that Washington knowingly assisted Ramirez in 

avoiding detection for his drug trafficking by tipping him off to the police’s 

initial investigation, advising him to get rid of his cellphone as the police were 

using it to track his activities, and falsely reporting clean urinalysis test 

results despite Ramirez’s admittedly regular heroin use. Washington’s 

assertion that she advised Ramirez of the police investigation solely in her 

capacity as his parole officer is defeated by the uncontroverted testimony from 

her supervisor, Leslie Clay, that parole officers have no duty to advise parolees 

that they are under investigation, and it is further undermined by 

Washington’s failure to note the investigating officer’s phone call in Ramirez’s 

parole records. Moreover, the Government submitted audio recordings of a 

meeting between Ramirez and Washington confirming that Ramirez 

 Case: 14-20547 Document: 00513236170 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2015
No. 14-20547

3

specifically told Washington that the $1,000 he was giving her resulted from 

his recent sale of heroin in Atlanta. The record is thus not devoid of evidence 

showing that Washington tacitly agreed with Ramirez to violate the drugtrafficking laws and voluntarily participated in profiting from that conspiracy. 

See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 491 (5th Cir. 2014); United States 

v. Thomas, 690 F.3d 358, 366 (5th Cir. 2012); see also Delgado, 672 F.3d at 331, 

333.

Washington’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support her 

convictions under the Hobbs Act is similarly unavailing. She argues that the 

Government failed to establish a sufficient nexus between her wholly local 

conduct and interstate commerce. Alternatively, she contends that the 

Government failed to prove extortion or conspiracy to commit same; more 

specifically, she asserts that the evidence fails to show that she accepted money 

from Ramirez in exchange for the performance or nonperformance of any 

official act. 

Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the trial evidence 

established that Ramirez was dealing in black tar heroin, manufactured 

exclusively in Mexico; that he was selling approximately $500 worth of heroin 

daily over the course of several years; that he made payments to Washington 

from his drug proceeds; that Washington knew about and ignored his drug 

dealing; and that Washington’s failure to note the police investigation, advice 

to Ramirez to throw away his cellphone, and false reports of clean urinalysis 

tests enabled Ramirez to continue his trafficking. Although Ramirez may have 

been considered a “small-time” dealer, Washington’s facilitation of his local 

drug trafficking and depleting drug trafficking funds sufficiently established 

the requisite interstate commerce nexus, particularly under the plain-error 

standard. See United States v. Villafranca, 260 F.3d 374, 378 (5th Cir. 2001); 

 Case: 14-20547 Document: 00513236170 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/19/2015
No. 14-20547

4

United States v. Box, 50 F.3d 345, 353 (5th Cir. 1995); see also Delgado, 672 

F.3d at 330-31.

Similarly, the record is not devoid of evidence showing the requisite 

extortion and conspiracy to commit same. See id. at 331. Washington urges 

that the evidence fails to demonstrate an explicit agreement to extort money 

from Ramirez and instead shows only that she was a parole officer who fell on 

hard financial times and used poor judgment in accepting assistance from a 

parolee. Her argument ignores the trial evidence that showed a tacit 

agreement whereby she accepted cash bribes from Ramirez in exchange for 

overlooking his heroin dealing and assisting him in obtaining a lesser parole 

reporting requirement or early termination. Ramirez’s testimony and the 

audio recordings established that Washington solicited bribes through tales of 

financial hardship, then identified other parolees whose reporting 

requirements she had successfully lowered after they gave her greeting cards 

filled with cash. Ramirez understood that if he continued to pay Washington, 

she would do the same for him. The audio recordings additionally revealed 

that, after accepting $1,000 from Ramirez, Washington promised to “take care 

of” him. Ramirez’s parole records, which made no mention of the police 

contacting her regarding a drug investigation, Ramirez’s drug use, or the cash 

she accepted from Ramirez, and which falsely reported clean urinalysis results, 

further corroborate Ramirez’s testimony establishing a tacit agreement to pay 

Washington to perform or fail to perform her official duties as a parole officer. 

See United States v. Wright, 797 F.2d 245, 250 (5th Cir. 1986); see also United 

States v. Stephens, 964 F.2d 424, 427-28 (5th Cir. 1992) 

Washington has failed to show a manifest miscarriage of justice or 

reversible plain error. See Delgado, 672 F.3d at 330-31. Accordingly, the 

district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-20547 Document: 00513236170 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/19/2015