The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a 30-month prison sentence for Kentravious Montrell Ware, concluding that the sentence, which varied upward from the recommended guidelines, was not “substantively unreasonable.” Ware, who pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, argued that the 30-month term—significantly higher than his 12-to-18-month guidelines range—was too harsh.
The appeals court, in a brief, non-argument calendar opinion, found that the District Court in the Middle District of Georgia was within its discretion when considering the severe nature of the offense alongside Ware’s history of violence.
The Incident: A Frightening Convenience Store Confrontation
The case centers on an incident in July 2023. Ware became involved in an argument with another male customer inside a convenience store after the man allegedly bumped into him. According to video evidence reviewed by the court, Ware escalated the situation dramatically: he pulled out a handgun and pointed it directly at the other man’s head multiple times during the heated exchange.
During the confrontation, Ware uttered several aggressive threats, including, “I wanna kill you right now” and “I’m gonna blow your ass boy.” Crucially, the court noted that several other people—customers and store employees—were present and could have been injured had Ware fired the weapon. Ware eventually placed the gun back in his waistband and left.
Extensive Criminal History Cited by Court
When calculating the sentencing guidelines, the Presentence Investigation Report (PSI) placed Ware in a criminal history category that resulted in an advisory range of 12 to 18 months. This calculation was based on prior felony convictions, including possession with intent to distribute marijuana and receiving stolen property.
However, the District Court also considered a string of misdemeanor convictions, which the government argued pointed to a “propensity for violence.” These included multiple counts of criminal trespass involving breaking into a woman’s home over a year-long period, and a battery conviction stemming from causing bodily harm to a person he lived with (family violence).
The Upward Variance Justified
At sentencing, the District Court decided an upward variance was necessary, ultimately imposing 30 months. The judge explained that they took “gun crimes very seriously” and found Ware’s conduct “very concerning” because he possessed a firearm while emotionally unstable.
Ware’s defense counsel argued that Ware carried the gun due to a “heightened sense of fear” following the fatal shooting of his brother a year earlier, claiming he felt threatened in the store. Counsel emphasized Ware’s quick admission of guilt and his plans to seek mechanic certifications in prison.
The District Court acknowledged Ware lacked a history of gun violence but focused heavily on his decade-long pattern of physical violence when angry. The court reasoned that this history of violence, combined with the introduction of a firearm, presented an “extremely dangerous” combination. The judge stressed that Ware had failed to seek help for his anger issues prior to the current offense.
Appeals Court Deference
Ware appealed, claiming the 30-month sentence was an extreme departure—nearly 150% higher than the bottom of the guidelines range—and unnecessary given his quick guilty plea and lack of prior firearm offenses.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the sentence under the highly deferential “abuse of discretion” standard, focusing on substantive reasonableness. The court reminded that mathematical calculations, such as the percentage of departure, are not the standard for determining justification. Instead, the sentence must simply be supported by compelling reasons under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The appellate panel found that the District Court acted properly by weighing the § 3553(a) factors as it saw fit. The court specifically noted that the District Judge:
1. Considered the extreme danger posed by pointing a gun at someone’s head in a public place.
2. Weighed Ware’s history of physical violence, even though it wasn’t gun-related.
3. Provided clear justifications for why the standard guidelines range was insufficient.
Furthermore, the Eleventh Circuit pointed out that the 30-month sentence remains far below the 15-year statutory maximum, which serves as an additional indicator of reasonableness. Because the appellate court was not left with a “definite and firm conviction” that the judge made a clear error in judgment, Ware’s sentence stands affirmed.