The Honor able De nise Cote, United States District J udg e for the Southern District of * New Y ork, sitting by

designation. 09-4847-c r USA v. Solano (Cardoso) U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT AM EN DE D SU M M AR Y O RD ER R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y O R D E R D O N O T H A V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORDE R F I L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S PE RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY FED ERA L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE P R O C EDU R E 32. 1 A N D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L R U LE 32. 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T , A P A R TY M U ST C I TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L AP PE N D I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S E RVE A COPY OF I T ON ANY PA R TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 22 day nd of Nove mber, two thousand ten. Pr e se nt: RO GE R J. MI NE R, ROBERT A. K

ATZ MANN, Circuit Judges , DENI SE COTE,

District Judge. *

________________________________________________ UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appellee , v. No. 09-4847-c r NEL SON SOLANO,

Defendant , CARMEN CARDOSO,

Defendant-

Appellant
.

________________________________________________-2-

F or De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt: S AM A. S C HMI DT , New Y ork, NY For Appellee : J OC EL YN E. S TRAU BE R , Assistant United States Attorney (Da

niel A. B raun, A ssistant United St ates Attorney , on the brief

), for Preet B hara

ra, United States Attorney

for the Souther

n District of Ne w York, Ne w York, NY Appea l from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York (Patterson, J. ). ON CO NSI DE RA TIO N W HEREOF , i ti s h e r e b y OR DE RE D , AD JU DGED , and DE CREED that th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

be and he reby is AF F IRM ED
. Def endant- appellant Car

men Cardoso a

ppeals fr om an Amende d J udg ment enter ed September 17, 2009 ( Patterson, J. ) sentenc ing he r principa lly to 150 months’ imprisonm ent. Cardoso wa s found guilty followinga jury

trial for ( 1) conspiringto import cocaine and her oin,
an d ( 2 ) c o n s p irin gto d is trib ute , an d to p o s s e s s w it

hinte nt t o d is trib ute , c o c a in e an d h e r o in
. We assume the pa

rties’ fa miliarity with the fac ts and proce dural history of this case
. On appe al, Cardoso a

rgues that the district cour t erre d when it did not estop the g overnme nt from ar guing that she was a supervisor or

manag er unde r sec tion 3B1.1 of the Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s. She c onte nd s th at th e g ov e rnme nt s ho uld have be e n e sto pp e d b e c a us e it had take n the inconsistent position at her co- defe ndant Miguel Diaz’s sentenc ing that Diaz was not a supervisor or

manag er a

nd was ther efor e elig ible for the statutory safe ty valve unde r 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). To the e x tent that such a c laim is viable, Cardoso’s argument is meritless. To make out a judicia l estoppel claim, a pa rty must demonstrate, amongother thing s, that the later position of the party

it seeks to estop is “clea

rly inconsistent with its earlier position.” Zedner v. United States , 5 4 7 U. S
. 4 8 9 , 5 0 4 (2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g New Hampshire v. M aine , 532 U.S. 742, 750-3-

(2001)) . Her e, ther e we re two diff ere nt defe ndants whose c onduct diffe red significantly
. Moreove r, in the one sc heme in which the two wer e co- conspirator s, Cardoso direc ted Diaz. The g overnme nt’s positions were not “c learly inconsistent.” Se eid . T he re fo re , th e dis tr ic t c ourt did not err in f

ailing to e stop the g overnme nt from arguing that Cardoso’s sentenc e should be enhanc ed under

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 due to he r super visory role. We have r eviewe d Cardoso’s re maining a rguments and conc lude that they lack merit. A c c o r d i n g l y, f

o r th e f o r e g o i n gr e a s o n s , th e j u d g m e nto f th e d i s tr i c tc o urti s h e r e b y AF F IRM ED
. FOR THECOURT: CA TH ERI

NEO’ HA GA

N WO L F E, CL ERK