Case Information
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NOS. CR09-0257JLR Plaintiff, CR09-0436JLR v.
ORDER LUKE ELLIOTT SOMMER,
Defendant.
Before the court is Defendant Luke Elliott Sommer’s motion for a sentence reduction (Mot. (Dkt # 69); Reply (Dkt. # 78)), and Plaintiff the United States of America’s (the “Government”) opposition thereto (Resp. (Dkt. # 77)). The court has considered the parties’ submissions, the record, and the applicable law. Being fully advised, the court DENIES the motion.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court may reduce a sentence if the defendant shows the following: (1) the defendant has exhausted administrative remedies; (2) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a sentence reduction; (3) a sentence reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; and (4) the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they apply, weigh in favor of the requested sentence reduction. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). The defendant bears the burden of establishing these required elements.
See United States v. Wright
,
The court summarized the factual background in its October 12, 2022 order, and does not repeat that background here except as is relevant. ( 10/12/22 Order (Dkt. # 54) at 2-8.) In May 2008, Mr. Sommer pled guilty to multiple offenses concerning his conduct in orchestrating and committing an armed bank robbery, brandishing a firearm during the robbery, and unlawfully possessing a grenade. ( Plea Agreement 06-5528 (CR06-5528JLR, Dkt. # 277) at 7-10; Judgment 06-5528 (CR06-5528JLR, Dkt. # 333) at 1-3.) Mr. Sommer was sentenced to 288 months for these offenses, less 11 months of time served. (Judgment 06-5528 at 3.)
In January 2010, Mr. Sommer pled guilty to subsequent, additional offenses after assaulting one of his coconspirators with a knife and soliciting the murder of the Assistant United States Attorney (“AUSA”) who prosecuted Mr. Sommer for the armed bank robbery. ( See Plea Agreement (Dkt. # 25) at 5-7; Judgment (Dkt. # 29); Judgment 09-0436 (CR09-0436JLR, Dkt. # 6).) Mr. Sommer was sentenced to an aggregate consecutive term of 240 months for these offenses. ( Judgment at 2.)
On June 22, 2022, Mr. Sommer moved to reduce his sentence, arguing, in pertinent part, that his sentence was unjustly lengthy and that his rehabilitative efforts warranted a reduction. ( See 1st Mot. (Dkt. # 31) at 28-41.) On October 12, 2022, the court granted Mr. Sommer’s motion in part. (10/12/2022 Order (Dkt. # 54).) On November 9, 2022, after a hearing, the court ordered a substantial reduction in Mr. Sommer’s sentence for armed bank robbery and related offenses, reducing Mr. Sommer’s sentence by more than 12 years—from 277 months to 132 months. (11/9/22 Order (Dkt. # 61).) The court did not reduce Mr. Sommer’s consecutive 240-month sentence, which related to his conduct in assaulting his coconspirator and soliciting the murder of an AUSA. (11/9/22 Order at 1-2.)
Just over two years later, on December 30, 2024, Mr. Sommer again moved to reduce his sentence, arguing, in pertinent part, that his continuing achievements while incarcerated and his wife’s health warrant another reduction. ( Mot.) Although Mr. Sommer’s recent conduct and achievements have been exemplary, the seriousness of his offenses warrants a severe sentence, and Mr. Sommer has already received a recent and substantial reduction in his sentence. Accordingly, at this time, the court concludes that Mr. Sommer fails to show that the factors set forth in section 3553(a) weigh in favor of a sentence reduction.
For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Ms. Sommer’s motion for a sentence reduction (CR09-0257JLR, Dkt. # 69; CR09-0436JLR, Dkt. # 48).
Dated this 17th day of June, 2025.
A JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge
Notes
[1] Mr. Sommer filed motions for a sentence reduction in two of his three criminal cases in this district. ( CR09-0257JLR, Dkt. # 69; CR09-0436JLR, Dkt. # 48.) The parties’ briefing is identical in both cases. Therefore, unless otherwise specified, the court refers to the docket entries in Case No. CR09-0257JLR.
[2] The court does not reach the other required elements in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
See
Keller
,