18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). However, “[i]t is not an abuse of discretion for a district court to impose a sentence that results in a disparity between co-defendants when there are ‘legitimate distinctions’ between the co-defendants.” United States v. Johnson, 688 F.3d 444, 448 (8th Cir.2012), quoting United States v. Davis-Bey, 605 F.3d 479, 483 (8th Cir.2010). Mohamed argues that, because the comparators were equally or more culpable, the district court abused its discretion by creating an unwarranted disparity between their sentences. Unlike his co-conspirators, Mohamed obstructed justice and did not receive acceptance of responsibility credit — a legitimate distinction between Mohamed and the comparators. See United States v. Sandoval-Sianuqui, 632 F.3d 438, 444-45 (8th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). ij: # iji * % ‡ The judgment of the district
holding that plaintiff was not similarly situated to another employee who also engaged in protected activity for purposes of plaintiffs retaliation claim holding codefendants were not similarly situated because one had a less extensive criminal history 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 that employee who violated a different policy of the store than plaintiff was not similarly situated holding that defendants are not similarly situated for sentencing purposes where one defendant accepts responsibility but the other does not