similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct”); see also United States v. Parker, 462 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Cir.2006) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6)). The District Court properly distinguished King’s conduct from that of Larkin and the other perpetrators. The only perpetrator convicted of the same crime as King received a lower sentence because, unlike King, he accepted responsibility, provided substantial assistance, did not obstruct the investigation and had a lower criminal history. The other perpetrators were sentenced for lesser crimes, did not have regular contact with Peanut, and did not exercise care or control over her. As for Larkin, she pleaded guilty to a lesser crime than King. Those differences justify King’s term of incarceration. See Parker, 462 F.3d at 278 (<HOLDING>). Second, King claims that the District Court’s
holding that potential class members are similarly situated to the named plaintiffs if they are similarly situated with respect to their job requirements and pay provisions holding codefendants were not similarly situated because one had a less extensive criminal history holding that employees of differing seniority levels were not similarly situated holding that a similarly situated employee is one who is comparable to plaintiff in all material respects holding that defendants are not similarly situated for sentencing purposes where one defendant accepts responsibility but the other does not