NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-3973 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:09-cr-00257-JLR-1 v.

LUKE ELLIOTT SOMMER,

Defendant - Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-3975 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:09-cr-00436-JLR-1 v. MEMORANDUM* LUKE ELLIOTT SOMMER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2025**

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated appeals, Luke Elliott Sommer appeals from the district

court’s order denying his second motion for compassionate release under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

affirm.

Sommer contends that the district court insufficiently explained why it

rejected his arguments, which were tethered to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

The district court, however, “is not required to exhaustively analyze every factor or

to expound upon every issue raised by a defendant.” United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 949 (9th Cir. 2022). Rather, the court need only show that it has

considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for its decision. See id.

The district court did so here. The court, which had substantially reduced

Sommer’s sentence just two years before the instant motion was filed,

acknowledged that Sommer’s conduct remained “exemplary,” but explained that

no further reduction was warranted in light of the seriousness of Sommer’s

offenses and the § 3553 factors as a whole. This explanation is sufficient to permit

meaningful appellate review, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying relief. See Wright, 46 F.4th at 944, 949.

The reply brief was timely filed and considered. Accordingly, the motion for

2 25-3973 & 25-3975 an extension of time to file the reply brief is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

3 25-3973 & 25-3975