Is the Fourth Circuit's plausibility test for evaluating a variance sentence under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, because it is untethered from any consideration of the lower court's sentencing guidelines calculation, procedurally erroneous?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Circumstances. Following his conviction by a jury sitting in the Eastern District of Virginia, Richard Todd Haas (“Haas”) was sentenced by the District Court to life imprisonment on the charge of attempted sex trafficking of children, 240 months for receipt of child pornography and 120 months on each of two counts of being in possession of child pornography, all to be served concurrently. Following a remand by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for resentencing, the district court again imposed a life sentence. The Fourth Circuit in upholding the sentence, declined to analyze whether the district court properly imposed an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines, holding instead that the reasons for its upward variance were “plausible, and they [were] tied to the § 3553(a) factors.” The Fourth Circuit denied the Appellant’s petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. Question for Review. Is the Fourth Circuit’s plausibility test for evaluating a variance sentence under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, because it is untethered from any consideration of the lower court’s sentencing guidelines calculation, procedurally erroneous? i