co-defendant received probation for similar conduct. Id. at 395. The government argued the district court erred by disregarding Guideline § 5B1.1, comment n. 2, which precluded probation in the ease. Id. at 397-98. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held: it is evident from the transcript of the sentencing hearing that the district court strongly believed that probation was appropriate in this case given Du-hon’s unique circumstances. Therefore, we cannot say that any potential error [of ignoring the guideline] was outcome determinative and so affected substantial rights as to allow us to remand the case to the district court. Id. at 398. The court concluded the sentence was substantively reasonable. Id.; see also United States v. Pyles, 272 Fed.Appx. 258, 261-62 (4th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Here, as in Duhon, the Court strongly
holding that district court did not err in determining that cocaine base was crack cocaine based on chemical analysis identifying cocaine base together with competent lay testimony bridging the evidentiary gap between cocaine base and crack cocaine and refusing to require showing of smokeability ie water solubility or melting point for purposes of establishing crack cocaine under the guidelines since smokeability distinguishes cocaine base from powder cocaine not from crack holding that variance sentence of five years probation with six months in home confinement for distribution of crack cocaine despite application of  5b11 comment n 2 was substantively reasonable holding that substantial downward variance was substantively unreasonable holding two prior convictions for distribution of crack relevant to show intent to distribute the crack found in defendants possession holding that a federal agents expert testimony regarding the characteristics of crack cocaine and the methods of its distribution was admissible and highly relevant in helping the jury resolve the central issue of whether the defendant possessed crack cocaine with intent to distribute