histories and different roles within the conspiracy, all other defendants had pleaded guilty (except for Trinidad and Cogswell), and some defendants cooperated with the government and testified at trial, for which they received substantial-assistance downward departures. Cogswell is not similarly situated to his eoeonspirators since, at a minimum, he did not plead guilty and accept responsibility for his crimes nor did he cooperate with the government. See United States v. Rivera Calderón, 578 F.3d 78, 107 (1st Cir.2009) (noting there is a “material difference between defendants who plead guilty and those who elect to go to trial, and any sentencing disparity that results from that difference is not unreasonable”); United States v. Thurston, 456 F.3d 211, 216-217 (1st Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Defendants who accept responsibility and/or
holding a defendant who pleads guilty without raising a double jeopardy issue  has waived his right to appeal that issue holding that a similarly situated employee is one who is comparable to plaintiff in all material respects holding that employee who violated a different policy of the store than plaintiff was not similarly situated holding that plaintiff was not similarly situated to another employee who also engaged in protected activity for purposes of plaintiffs retaliation claim holding that a defendant who pleads guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence is not similarly situated to a defendant who contests his charges