United States v. Jeffrey Ihm, 17-10523

Defendant Jeffrey Ihm pleaded guilty to 14 counts of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) and 5 counts of aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A).
Ihm fraudulently obtained over $2 million, victimizing more than 10 financial institutions/businesses and stealing identities of multiple real persons.
Ihm had six prior felony convictions (four involving fraud/identity theft) and history of community control/probation violations.
District court imposed a total 140-month sentence (92 months on Counts 1–14 at the low end of the guideline range, with consecutive terms on some § 1028A counts), within the guidelines and well below statutory maximums.
Ihm appealed, arguing the sentence was substantively unreasonable because the court overemphasized his criminal history/victim impact and failed to consider that better early counsel would have led him to accept a lower plea offer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the total 140-month sentence is substantively unreasonable under an abuse-of-discretion standard	Ihm: court gave undue weight to criminal history and victim impact, failed to balance § 3553(a) factors, and ignored that better counsel would have produced a lower plea acceptance	Government: sentence is within guideline range, considered § 3553(a) factors, and court acted within discretion including on consecutive § 1028A terms	Affirmed: sentence is substantively reasonable; court did not single‑mindedly rely on one factor and weighed relevant § 3553(a) considerations within its discretion
Whether district court improperly failed to consider Ihm’s assertion about earlier ineffective counsel and a declined plea offer	Ihm: earlier counsel’s shortcomings prevented acceptance of a 116‑month offer, which court should have credited	Government: counsel argument is irrelevant to § 3553(a) analysis and record supports the sentence regardless	Affirmed: argument irrelevant; record shows sentence reasonable under § 3553(a) factors

United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 2008) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard and review of substantive reasonableness)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (discussing presumption of reasonableness for within‑guidelines sentences)
United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (burden on party challenging sentence to show unreasonableness)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (totality of circumstances in reviewing substantive reasonableness under § 3553(a))
United States v. Rosales‑Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2015) (district court may weigh § 3553(a) factors differently)
United States v. Crisp, 454 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2006) (court may not single‑mindedly focus on one factor to the detriment of others)
United States v. Snipes, 611 F.3d 855 (11th Cir. 2010) (appellate court will not second‑guess weight given to particular § 3553(a) factors so long as sentence is reasonable)
United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739 (11th Cir. 2008) (within‑guidelines sentences are ordinarily expected to be reasonable)
United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2008) (sentence well below statutory maximum supports reasonableness)