[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-11293

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cr-00411-JDW-AEP-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

IAN ONEIL BROWN, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(January 19, 2017)

Before HULL, WILSON, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 16-11293 Date Filed: 01/19/2017 Page: 1 of 10 
2

Defendant Ian Brown appeals his 81-month total sentence, after pleading 

guilty to falsely representing a social security number, aggravated identity theft, 

and possession of a firearm by an illegal alien. On appeal, Defendant challenges 

the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. After careful 

review, we affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND

According to the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”), in 1997, 

Defendant, a citizen and national of Jamaica, began using the legitimately-issued 

social security number of another individual named Dunn Wiltshire. Wiltshire 

filed a police report in 2013, claiming that his identity had been stolen. The Social 

Security Office of the Inspector General and the Department of Homeland Security 

eventually determined that Defendant was responsible for the misuse of Wiltshire’s 

identity. While conducting surveillance at a residence in Florida, which had been

identified as Wiltshire’s, investigators observed Defendant arrive at the residence

in a car registered to Shawn Anthony Canton. 

It was later revealed that Defendant obtained a license in Canton’s name 

with Canton’s social security number and a forged version of Canton’s birth 

certificate. Defendant purchased the identities of Wiltshire and Canton for $1,000 

and $4,000, respectively. Law enforcement officials subsequently searched 

Case: 16-11293 Date Filed: 01/19/2017 Page: 2 of 10 
3

Defendant’s residence and found among other things, birth certificates in Canton’s 

and Wiltshire’s names, as well as a firearm. 

Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to falsely representing a social 

security number, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B), aggravated identity 

theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), and possession of a firearm by an 

illegal alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5), 924(a)(2). 

In anticipation of sentencing, the probation officer prepared the PSR. The 

PSR grouped Counts 1 and 3 separately.1

 As to Count 1 (falsely representing a 

social security number), the PSR calculated a base offense level of 6, pursuant to 

U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a)(2). Defendant received a 12-level enhancement under 

§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(G), because the loss was more than $250,000 but less than $550,000. 

Specifically, Defendant derived $511,176.37 of income earnings that he would not 

have otherwise received without the fraud. Defendant also received two additional 

enhancements not relevant to this appeal, resulting in an adjusted offense level of 

22 as to Count 1. 

As to Count 3 (possession of a firearm by an illegal alien), the PSR assigned 

Defendant a base offense level of 24, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1. Because 

Defendant did not receive any other enhancements or reductions, his adjusted 

offense level was 24. Because the offense level for Count 3 was greater than the 

 1

 Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.6, Count 2 is exempt from grouping and requires a 24-month 

sentence consecutive to any other sentence imposed. 

Case: 16-11293 Date Filed: 01/19/2017 Page: 3 of 10 
4

offense level for Count 1, the PSR used the offense level from Count 3 to calculate 

the guideline range. With a 2-level multi-count adjustment and a 3-level reduction 

for acceptance of responsibility, Defendant’s resulting total offense level was 23. 

Based on a total offense level of 23 and a criminal history category of III, 

Defendant’s guideline range was 57 to 71 months’ imprisonment. The PSR noted 

that Defendant was also subject to a 24-month term of imprisonment as to Count 2, 

to run consecutively to any other sentence imposed. 

At the sentencing hearing, the district court sustained an objection Defendant

raised to the 12-level enhancement under § 2B1.1(b)(1)(G), which resulted in an 

amended guideline range of 46 to 57 months’ imprisonment as to Counts 1 and 3. 

Defendant asserted that a sentence of 46 months’ imprisonment, followed by the 

consecutive 24-month sentence on Count 2, would adequately reflect the 

seriousness of his crimes. The Government acknowledged Defendant’s acceptance 

of responsibility, but stressed the seriousness of the offense and the impact that 

Defendant’s crimes had on the victims. The Government asserted that a sentence 

at the high end of the guideline range was necessary to reflect the seriousness of 

the offense. 

In addressing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the district court stated in 

relevant part: 

The nature and circumstances of the offense have been alluded to by 

counsel. This was a 15-year identity theft, a fraud perpetrated by the 

Case: 16-11293 Date Filed: 01/19/2017 Page: 4 of 10 
5

defendant without regard to the impact on these victims. While there 

may not be any way to measure the financial loss to these victims, it is 

not difficult to consider the financial stress, the turmoil, the confusion, 

the sense of invasion of privacy that these victims must have and are 

today experiencing. 

. . .

This is a serious offense and I don’t mean to understate that in 

any way. And I don’t think one can overstate it. Identity theft is 

rampant. . . . 

It sounds like you have a lovely [fiancée] and a good family. 

You certainly have family support. And they are going to be hurt and 

disadvantaged because of the sentence I impose. But that is your 

doing, sir, not mine. 

Consequently, the district court sentenced Defendant to a total sentence of 81 

months’ imprisonment, consisting of a 57 month, within-guidelines range sentence

as to Counts 1 and 3, followed by the mandatory, consecutive 24-month term of 

imprisonment on Count 2. This appeal followed. 

II. DISCUSSION

Using a two-step process, we review the reasonableness of a district court’s 

sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888, 892 (11th 

Cir. 2014). First, we determine whether a sentence is procedurally reasonable. Id. 

“A sentence may be procedurally unreasonable if the district court improperly 

calculates the Guidelines range, treats the Guidelines as mandatory rather than 

advisory, fails to consider the appropriate statutory factors, selects a sentence based 

Case: 16-11293 Date Filed: 01/19/2017 Page: 5 of 10 
6

on clearly erroneous facts, or fails to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” 

United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1323 (11th Cir. 2008). 

After determining that a sentence is procedurally sound, we then examine 

whether the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the 

circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.2

 Cubero, 754 F.3d at 892. The 

party challenging the sentence bears the burden of showing that it is unreasonable. 

United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1189 (11th Cir. 2008). We will only vacate 

a defendant’s sentence if we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that the 

district court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors 

by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated 

by the facts of the case.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 

2010) (en banc) (quotation omitted). 

A. Procedural Reasonableness 

Defendant argues that the district court procedurally erred by relying on 

factual findings that were not supported by any evidence. In particular, he asserts 

 2 The § 3553(a) factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history 

and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to 

promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the need for 

deterrence; (4) the need to protect the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with needed 

education or vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the 

Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; 

(9) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide restitution 

to victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

Case: 16-11293 Date Filed: 01/19/2017 Page: 6 of 10 
7

that the Government did not present any evidence to show that both victims

suffered as a result of Defendant’s fraud. 

We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error. United States 

v. McGuinness, 451 F.3d 1302, 1304 (11th Cir. 2006). However, because 

Defendant did not challenge this factual finding before the district court, we review 

his argument on appeal for plain error. See United States v. Johnson, 694 F.3d 

1192, 1195 (11th Cir. 2012). We will notice plain error when “(1) there is an error; 

(2) that is plain or obvious; (3) affecting the defendant’s substantial rights in that it 

was prejudicial and not harmless; and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, 

integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” Id. (quotation omitted). 

The Government must prove the facts relevant to sentencing by a 

preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 156 

(1997). The sentencing court’s factual findings may be based upon evidence heard 

during trial, undisputed statements in the PSI, or evidence presented during the 

sentencing hearing. United States v. Smith, 480 F.3d 1277, 1281 (11th Cir. 2007). 

Although the district court is permitted to draw reasonable inferences from the 

record, it must base its factual determinations on reliable and specific evidence, not 

speculation. United States v. Creel, 783 F.3d 1357, 1359 (11th Cir. 2015); United 

States v. Newman, 614 F.3d 1232, 1238 (11th Cir. 2010). 

Case: 16-11293 Date Filed: 01/19/2017 Page: 7 of 10 
8

Here, the district court did not commit plain error by finding that the harm 

suffered by the victims rendered the offense sufficiently serious to warrant a 

sentence at the high end of the guideline range. The PSR stated that Wiltshire filed 

a statement in 2013, indicating that as a result of the identity theft (1) he had no 

credit, (2) he was forced to move in with his parents, (3) the Internal Revenue 

Service had investigated him, and (4) he tried to purchase a car in 2000 but was 

denied due to having poor credit. Because Defendant did not object to these facts, 

the district court was permitted to rely on them to support its finding. See Smith, 

480 F.3d at 1281. 

Although the Government did not present any evidence regarding the harm 

suffered by Canton, Defendant has not shown that the district court relied on 

speculation in crafting his sentence. Indeed, the record suggests that the district 

court based its sentence on the cumulative suffering of the victims and not 

speculation regarding Canton. Moreover, the undisputed facts demonstrating the 

impact the fraud had on Wiltshire adequately supported the district court’s finding 

that the harm suffered rendered the offense serious. See Creel, 783 F.3d at 1359; 

Newman, 614 F.3d at 1238. Accordingly, Defendant has not demonstrated that the 

district court plainly erred by relying on the impact of Defendant’s crimes in 

determining an appropriate sentence. 

Case: 16-11293 Date Filed: 01/19/2017 Page: 8 of 10 
9

B. Substantive Reasonableness

Defendant argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because 

it was greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing. We disagree.

At the outset, Defendant’s sentence was within the guideline range. United 

States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008) (explaining that, although we do 

not presume that a sentence within the guideline range is reasonable, we typically 

expect it to be reasonable). Moreover, his 57-month sentence was well below the 

statutory maximum sentences of 5 years on Count 1 and 10 years on Count 3, and 

his consecutive 24-month sentence on Count 2 was required by statute. See 42 

U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B); 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5), 924(a)(2), 1028A(a)(1); see also 

Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324 (explaining that a sentence that is below the statutory 

maximum is an indicator of reasonableness). 

Further, as noted by the district court, Defendant’s sentence was supported 

by several § 3553(a) factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense, 

the seriousness of the offense, the need for deterrence, and the need to promote 

respect for the law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(2). Specifically, the district court 

referenced the 15-year duration of the fraud, the harm suffered by the victims, the 

effect the sentence would have on Defendant’s family, and the severity of identity 

theft. 

Case: 16-11293 Date Filed: 01/19/2017 Page: 9 of 10 
10

Although Defendant argues that the mitigating factors supported a sentence 

at the low end of the guideline range, the district court was permitted to conclude 

that other factors weighed more heavily in favor of a sentence at the top of the 

guideline range. See United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007) 

(“The weight to be accorded any given § 3553(a) factor is a matter committed to 

the sound discretion of the district court. . . .” (quotations omitted)). 

Finally, we are not persuaded by Defendant’s argument that the district 

court’s imposition of a sentence at the high end of the guideline range defeated the 

purpose of sustaining Defendant’s objection to the 12-level enhancement 

under § 2B1.1(b)(1)(G). That the district court sustained Defendant’s objection 

because the precise amount of loss could not be ascertained did not mean that the 

district court was not permitted to impose a sentence at the top of the amended 

guideline range. In short, the record shows that the district court considered and 

weighed the conflicting factors in making its sentencing determination and 

Defendant has not met his burden of showing that the district court arrived “at a 

sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of 

the case.” Irey, 612 F.3d at 1190 (quotations omitted).

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s sentence is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 16-11293 Date Filed: 01/19/2017 Page: 10 of 10