the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART. 1 . Prior to sentencing, Brown filed a sentencing memorandum in which he requested the district court consider reducing his sentence to account for the disparities in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses. 2 . After Brown was sentenced in October 2007, the Supreme Court decided 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.” Kimbrough, 128 S.Ct. 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 -
holding that a defendants probation cannot be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay 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