I'm going to let you do your own homework, because I expect that when I show you you're wrong, rather than thanking me for correcting you, you're going to get indignant and find some way to attack both me and the actual correct answer to the question. Maybe if you look it up yourself, that won't happen.
I've given you more than enough detail to go find the right answer.
You can in the meantime take my word for it on two things: (1) that Swartz was threatened with a specific sentence recommendation that was nowhere near 35 years (it was still a very tough sentence totally out of proportion to what he did) and (2) that a DoJ press release maximum sentence bears no resemblance to the sentences CFAA convicts can expect to receive from a judge.
1) The discussion on reasonable sentencing Some have argued that criminal prosecution was inappropriate ... did not mention that MIT, as well as JSTOR, did not want a jail sentence imposed. The recent MIT report states that MIT made this known to the prosecutor. That MIT suffered loss was a major reason given to justify jail time. The writer can be excused for not knowing that, at the time, confidential information but it makes moot his arguement of jail time being reasonable.
2) Pointing fingers at media outlets for exaggerating possible jail time is a non-sequitur when, as stated in the link, prosecutor PR releases purposefully seek the exaggeration.
3) No where in the link is it argued that the prosecution took long jail time off the table. Quite the opposite, they left the possibility there on the edges to bully the defendant into accepting a plea that included jail time. This even when JSTOR and MIT both wanted to avoid it.
4) Generally speaking I found the link was predisposed to favor the prosecutors. I say that because in all cases where Aaron Swartz's actions are discussed there is the assumption that his actions were part of a larger pattern of behavior. To me it smacked of justifying prosecutorial overreach based on "future-crimes". On the other hand it easily accepts overreaching prosecutorial actions as just the way the system works.
5) The link, I thought, worked hard to dismiss outrage over the Swartz case by saying it was misplaced. The outrage, it was argued, should instead be at the system. While it is obvious that it is the laws that must be changed, it is instances like the Swartz case that moves public opinion snd enables change.
That's Orin Kerr's take on what happened, but Kerr is not Swartz's lawyer, who, once again, disclosed what the actual threatened sentence was for Swartz.
And, no matter what DoJ's press releases say, facts are facts; sentences are not as a general rule computed by adding up all the possible maximum sentences of every charge.
Where is your reference to the contrary?