then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. “Substantive reasonableness review entails taking into account the ‘totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.’ ” Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473 (quoting Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597). After Jones was sentenced, the Supreme Court decided, in Kimbrough v. United States, — U.S. --■, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), that “it would not be an abuse of discretion for a district court to conclude when sentencing a particular defendant that the crack/powder disparity yields a sentence ‘greater than necessary’ to achieve § 3553(a)’s purposes, even in a mine-run case.” Id. at 575. Kimbrough thus abrogated this court’s decision in United States v. Eura, 440 F.3d 625, 634 (4th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>), vacated, - U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 853, - L.Ed.2d -
recognizing that evidence may be legally insufficient where there is variance between indictment allegations and proof holding that substantial downward variance was substantively unreasonable holding that 1001 ratio cannot be the basis of a variance holding variance between enhancement allegation and proof renders evidence legally insufficient only if variance is material holding that a defendants probation cannot be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay