observationobservation
Richmond December 18, 2025 consent final order: $6 million joint judgment and preserved appellate questions
Read the anchor · page 1
Case3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document169-4 Filed04/15/26 Page1of6 PageID2533. EXHIBIT4.
Context source · CXF-S-350B7CF406C4
IP HII EDVA 00483 Doc. 0169 Exhibit 4
SHA-256
350b7cf406c43ea15dd2…6 pages · 240 KBDISTILLATES
What the source contains
Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
claimallegation
EDVA Document169-4 filedApril15,2026 supplies Exhibit4 divider and an inner ExhibitE Richmond Circuit Court consent final order inCL24-3910,
EDVA Document169-4 filedApril15,2026 supplies Exhibit4 divider and an inner ExhibitE Richmond Circuit Court consent final order inCL24-3910, Atlantic Wave Holdings and Secure Community v Cyberlux and MarkD.Schmidt individually. It records a December16,2025 hearing on dissolving the stay and entering the order.
Read the anchor · page 1
Case3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document169-4 Filed04/15/26 Page1of6 PageID2533. EXHIBIT4.
claimallegation
The court recites a September19 joint motion and its October30 opinion holding the CL22-3882 settlement valid. Its description says the Rece
The court recites a September19 joint motion and its October30 opinion holding the CL22-3882 settlement valid. Its description says the Receiver acted “on behalf of the Plaintiffs”, despite the opening description of defendants represented by the Receiver. The text is preserved as printed rather than silently resolving that internal attribution inconsistency.
Read the anchor · page 2
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 169-4 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID#2534. EXHIBIT E VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, Case No.: CL24-3910 CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants. CONSENT FINAL ORDER On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq., appeared by and through counsel before this Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented, the Court makes the following ruling: It appearing that this matter has been previously visited by the court when Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on September 19, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order (First Motion) entered between Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The Defendants objected and the Court allowed the parties to brief the issues, after which the Court entered a written "Opinion and Order" dated October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion. As part of the October 30, 2025, order, the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid, and ' While the Receivership names Mark D. Schmidt, individually, as a Judgment Debtor, the Receiver has filed an Order in Texas, which has yet to be entered, removing Mark D. Schmidt, individually, from the terms of the Receivership Order in Texas.
claimallegation
The order says the receivership was properly recorded in Richmond without objection and identifies JudgeMichaelGomez’s May22,2025 appointmen
The order says the receivership was properly recorded in Richmond without objection and identifies JudgeMichaelGomez’s May22,2025 appointment in the129th Judicial Court of Harris County. The Texas cause number is printed2024448085. Footnote1 says an order removing Schmidt individually from the receivership had been filed in Texas but had yet to be entered; this source does not establish that removal occurred.
Read the anchor · page 2
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 169-4 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID#2534. EXHIBIT E VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, Case No.: CL24-3910 CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants. CONSENT FINAL ORDER On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq., appeared by and through counsel before this Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented, the Court makes the following ruling: It appearing that this matter has been previously visited by the court when Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on September 19, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order (First Motion) entered between Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The Defendants objected and the Court allowed the parties to brief the issues, after which the Court entered a written "Opinion and Order" dated October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion. As part of the October 30, 2025, order, the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid, and ' While the Receivership names Mark D. Schmidt, individually, as a Judgment Debtor, the Receiver has filed an Order in Texas, which has yet to be entered, removing Mark D. Schmidt, individually, from the terms of the Receivership Order in Texas.
claimallegation
The court recounts staying its first motion pending represented Texas proceedings, then describes a November4 appellate abatement treating t
The court recounts staying its first motion pending represented Texas proceedings, then describes a November4 appellate abatement treating the case as closed and removing it from the docket, and November11 denial of an emergency stay. These are this order’s descriptions of Texas exhibits referenced but not reproduced here. The Receiver did not object to the second motion.
Read the anchor · page 3
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 169-4 Filed 04/15/26 Page 3 of 6 PagelD# 2535 that the Order of Receivership was properly recorded in the City of Richmond, without objection. The Receiver in this case was appointed by the Honorable Michael Gomez, on May 22, 2025, in the 129th Judicial Court in Harris County Texas, Cause Number 2024448085, to control the business function, in all respects, of the Defendant Cyberlux Corporation and the individual, Mark D. Schmidt. Notwithstanding, based on the representation that the Defendants had noted an appeal in the Texas Court of Appeals appealing the denial of the Defendants' Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, and the Defendants' representation that the Defendants had filed an Emergency Motion in the Harris County District Court seeking the termination of the Receivership, the Court denied the entry of the consent order in the First Motion and stayed further rulings pending the resolution of proceedings in Texas. And it further appearing that, subsequent to the entry of the October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion, there has been a change in circumstances causing Plaintiffs to file this second motion to lift the current stay and enter an order based on the original agreement set forth in the First Motion (the "Second Motion). The Receiver had no objection to the Second Motion. And it further appearing that by Abatement Order entered in the Texas Court of Appeals on November 4, 2025, the Texas Court of Appeals abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from the docket, the Defendants' appeal of the denial of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus as reflected by Exhibit B attached to Second Motion. And it further appearing that on November 11, 2025, the Harris County District Court denied Defendants' Emergency Motion to Stay as reflected by Exhibit D attached to the Second Motion. And it lastly appearing to the court the Receiver has authority to control and or manage
claimallegation
The court concludes the Receiver has authority to control or manage litigation incident to his role and that the Receiver and plaintiffs agr
The court concludes the Receiver has authority to control or manage litigation incident to his role and that the Receiver and plaintiffs agreed to judgment. It grants Atlantic Wave and Secure a negotiated $6,000,000 compensatory judgment jointly and severally against Cyberlux and MarkD.Schmidt individually to resolve the complaint claims.
Read the anchor · page 3
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 169-4 Filed 04/15/26 Page 3 of 6 PagelD# 2535 that the Order of Receivership was properly recorded in the City of Richmond, without objection. The Receiver in this case was appointed by the Honorable Michael Gomez, on May 22, 2025, in the 129th Judicial Court in Harris County Texas, Cause Number 2024448085, to control the business function, in all respects, of the Defendant Cyberlux Corporation and the individual, Mark D. Schmidt. Notwithstanding, based on the representation that the Defendants had noted an appeal in the Texas Court of Appeals appealing the denial of the Defendants' Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, and the Defendants' representation that the Defendants had filed an Emergency Motion in the Harris County District Court seeking the termination of the Receivership, the Court denied the entry of the consent order in the First Motion and stayed further rulings pending the resolution of proceedings in Texas. And it further appearing that, subsequent to the entry of the October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion, there has been a change in circumstances causing Plaintiffs to file this second motion to lift the current stay and enter an order based on the original agreement set forth in the First Motion (the "Second Motion). The Receiver had no objection to the Second Motion. And it further appearing that by Abatement Order entered in the Texas Court of Appeals on November 4, 2025, the Texas Court of Appeals abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from the docket, the Defendants' appeal of the denial of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus as reflected by Exhibit B attached to Second Motion. And it further appearing that on November 11, 2025, the Harris County District Court denied Defendants' Emergency Motion to Stay as reflected by Exhibit D attached to the Second Motion. And it lastly appearing to the court the Receiver has authority to control and or manage
claimallegation
The order awards $25,250.50 in costs including reasonable attorney fees and postjudgment interest at6%perannum from entry. Remaining motions
The order awards $25,250.50 in costs including reasonable attorney fees and postjudgment interest at6%perannum from entry. Remaining motions are moot; complaint and countercomplaint are dismissed with prejudice; the cause is ended and may be stricken upon entry. It supplies no payment or satisfaction evidence.
Read the anchor · page 4
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 169-4 Filed 04/15/26 Page 4 of 6 PagelD# 2536 litigation incident to his role and that the Receiver and Plaintiffs have agreed to the entry of a judgment by consent against the Defendants to resolve the Complaint and finalize the litigation, it is therefore ORDERED that judgment is GRANTED in favor of Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and against Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, jointly and severally, as follows: a. The Court awards Plaintiffs the negotiated sum of SIX MILLION DOLLARS ($6,000,000.00) in compensatory damages, jointly and severally, against Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, to resolve the claims alleged in Plaintiffs' complaint. b. That Plaintiffs be awarded all their costs, including reasonable attorney's fees in the amount of $25,250.50, per the parties agreement and post judgment interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of entry of this order. c. Any remaining Motions pending before the court are dismissed as moot. d. Plaintiffs' Complaint and Defendants' Counter-Complaint are hereby dismissed with prejudice to the parties. e. The cause is ended and may be stricken from the docket upon entry of this order. The Court notes that the Defendants, by counsel, filed a Motion to Quash the December 16, 2025, hearing based on its assertion that the hearing was improperly scheduled, and that defense counsel was unable to appear. The Defendants' counsel of record did not appear. The Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to Quash electronically with supporting exhibits. The Defendants then filed a reply, electronically, all of which were reviewed by the court and considered. Based on the pleadings and argument, the Motion to Quash is Denied. The Court
claimallegation
Defence counsel did not appear and had moved to quash on scheduling grounds. The court says it reviewed the opposition, supporting exhibits
Defence counsel did not appear and had moved to quash on scheduling grounds. The court says it reviewed the opposition, supporting exhibits and reply and denies quash. It expressly makes no ruling on defendants’ standing to claim defective notice and no ruling on their appellate rights. Those reservations must not be converted into adjudication against all notice or appellate arguments.
Read the anchor · page 4
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 169-4 Filed 04/15/26 Page 4 of 6 PagelD# 2536 litigation incident to his role and that the Receiver and Plaintiffs have agreed to the entry of a judgment by consent against the Defendants to resolve the Complaint and finalize the litigation, it is therefore ORDERED that judgment is GRANTED in favor of Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and against Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, jointly and severally, as follows: a. The Court awards Plaintiffs the negotiated sum of SIX MILLION DOLLARS ($6,000,000.00) in compensatory damages, jointly and severally, against Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, to resolve the claims alleged in Plaintiffs' complaint. b. That Plaintiffs be awarded all their costs, including reasonable attorney's fees in the amount of $25,250.50, per the parties agreement and post judgment interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of entry of this order. c. Any remaining Motions pending before the court are dismissed as moot. d. Plaintiffs' Complaint and Defendants' Counter-Complaint are hereby dismissed with prejudice to the parties. e. The cause is ended and may be stricken from the docket upon entry of this order. The Court notes that the Defendants, by counsel, filed a Motion to Quash the December 16, 2025, hearing based on its assertion that the hearing was improperly scheduled, and that defense counsel was unable to appear. The Defendants' counsel of record did not appear. The Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to Quash electronically with supporting exhibits. The Defendants then filed a reply, electronically, all of which were reviewed by the court and considered. Based on the pleadings and argument, the Motion to Quash is Denied. The Court
claimallegation
The entry line bears December18,2025 and JudgeJacquelineS.McClenney’s designation/signature. Plaintiffs’ counsel CharlesA.Gavin and receiver
The entry line bears December18,2025 and JudgeJacquelineS.McClenney’s designation/signature. Plaintiffs’ counsel CharlesA.Gavin and receiver counsel VernonE.IngeJr/RobertN.Drewry appear under “WE ASK FOR THIS”. Defendant counsel JimmyF.Robinson’s block instead says signature waived pursuant toRule1:13. The waiver is not evidence that defendant counsel signed or assented. A clerk certification stamp is visible; no independent signature authentication was performed.
Read the anchor · page 5
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 169-4 Filed 04/15/26 Page 5 of 6 PagelD# 2537 makes no ruling on whether the Defendants had standing to claim defective notice and makes no ruling on whether the Defendants have any appellate rights. It is SO ORDERED. ENTERED This 18th day of December, 2025 Honorable Jacqueline S. McClenney, Presiding Judge Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, Virginia WE ASK FOR THIS: Teste: EDWARD F. JEWETT, CLERK Charles A. Gavin, VSB#31391 [Clerk/deputy signature mark; name not independently transcribed.] Rudy Coyner, Attorneys at Law 13271 Rivers Bend Blvd. Chester, Virginia 23836 (804) 748-3600, ext. 306 (804) 748-4671 facsimile E-mail: cgavin@rudycoyner.com Counsel for Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC [Signature mark] Vernon E. Inge, Jr. #32699 Robert N. Drewry, VSB #91282 Whiteford Taylor & Preston, LLP Two James Center 1021 E. Cary Street, Suite 2001 Richmond, VA 23219 804.977.3301 804.977.3291 Facsimile vinge@whitefordlaw.com rdrewry@whitefordlaw.com Counsel for Robert W. Berleth, Receiver ..... 4
entityobservation
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
Read the anchor · page 2
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 169-4 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID#2534. EXHIBIT E VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, Case No.: CL24-3910 CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants. CONSENT FINAL ORDER On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq., appeared by and through counsel before this Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented, the Court makes the following ruling: It appearing that this matter has been previously visited by the court when Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on September 19, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order (First Motion) entered between Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The Defendants objected and the Court allowed the parties to brief the issues, after which the Court entered a written "Opinion and Order" dated October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion. As part of the October 30, 2025, order, the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid, and ' While the Receivership names Mark D. Schmidt, individually, as a Judgment Debtor, the Receiver has filed an Order in Texas, which has yet to be entered, removing Mark D. Schmidt, individually, from the terms of the Receivership Order in Texas.
entityobservation
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC
Read the anchor · page 2
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 169-4 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID#2534. EXHIBIT E VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, Case No.: CL24-3910 CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants. CONSENT FINAL ORDER On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq., appeared by and through counsel before this Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented, the Court makes the following ruling: It appearing that this matter has been previously visited by the court when Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on September 19, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order (First Motion) entered between Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The Defendants objected and the Court allowed the parties to brief the issues, after which the Court entered a written "Opinion and Order" dated October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion. As part of the October 30, 2025, order, the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid, and ' While the Receivership names Mark D. Schmidt, individually, as a Judgment Debtor, the Receiver has filed an Order in Texas, which has yet to be entered, removing Mark D. Schmidt, individually, from the terms of the Receivership Order in Texas.
entityobservation
CYBERLUX CORPORATION
Read the anchor · page 2
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 169-4 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID#2534. EXHIBIT E VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, Case No.: CL24-3910 CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants. CONSENT FINAL ORDER On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq., appeared by and through counsel before this Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented, the Court makes the following ruling: It appearing that this matter has been previously visited by the court when Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on September 19, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order (First Motion) entered between Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The Defendants objected and the Court allowed the parties to brief the issues, after which the Court entered a written "Opinion and Order" dated October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion. As part of the October 30, 2025, order, the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid, and ' While the Receivership names Mark D. Schmidt, individually, as a Judgment Debtor, the Receiver has filed an Order in Texas, which has yet to be entered, removing Mark D. Schmidt, individually, from the terms of the Receivership Order in Texas.
entityobservation
MARK D. SCHMIDT
Read the anchor · page 2
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 169-4 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID#2534. EXHIBIT E VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, Case No.: CL24-3910 CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants. CONSENT FINAL ORDER On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq., appeared by and through counsel before this Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented, the Court makes the following ruling: It appearing that this matter has been previously visited by the court when Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on September 19, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order (First Motion) entered between Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The Defendants objected and the Court allowed the parties to brief the issues, after which the Court entered a written "Opinion and Order" dated October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion. As part of the October 30, 2025, order, the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid, and ' While the Receivership names Mark D. Schmidt, individually, as a Judgment Debtor, the Receiver has filed an Order in Texas, which has yet to be entered, removing Mark D. Schmidt, individually, from the terms of the Receivership Order in Texas.
entityobservation
Robert W. Berleth
Read the anchor · page 2
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 169-4 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID#2534. EXHIBIT E VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, Case No.: CL24-3910 CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants. CONSENT FINAL ORDER On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq., appeared by and through counsel before this Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented, the Court makes the following ruling: It appearing that this matter has been previously visited by the court when Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on September 19, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order (First Motion) entered between Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The Defendants objected and the Court allowed the parties to brief the issues, after which the Court entered a written "Opinion and Order" dated October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion. As part of the October 30, 2025, order, the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid, and ' While the Receivership names Mark D. Schmidt, individually, as a Judgment Debtor, the Receiver has filed an Order in Texas, which has yet to be entered, removing Mark D. Schmidt, individually, from the terms of the Receivership Order in Texas.
entityobservation
Jacqueline S. McClenney
Read the anchor · page 5
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 169-4 Filed 04/15/26 Page 5 of 6 PagelD# 2537 makes no ruling on whether the Defendants had standing to claim defective notice and makes no ruling on whether the Defendants have any appellate rights. It is SO ORDERED. ENTERED This 18th day of December, 2025 Honorable Jacqueline S. McClenney, Presiding Judge Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, Virginia WE ASK FOR THIS: Teste: EDWARD F. JEWETT, CLERK Charles A. Gavin, VSB#31391 [Clerk/deputy signature mark; name not independently transcribed.] Rudy Coyner, Attorneys at Law 13271 Rivers Bend Blvd. Chester, Virginia 23836 (804) 748-3600, ext. 306 (804) 748-4671 facsimile E-mail: cgavin@rudycoyner.com Counsel for Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC [Signature mark] Vernon E. Inge, Jr. #32699 Robert N. Drewry, VSB #91282 Whiteford Taylor & Preston, LLP Two James Center 1021 E. Cary Street, Suite 2001 Richmond, VA 23219 804.977.3301 804.977.3291 Facsimile vinge@whitefordlaw.com rdrewry@whitefordlaw.com Counsel for Robert W. Berleth, Receiver ..... 4
entityobservation
Jimmy F. Robinson
Read the anchor · page 6
Case 3:25-cV-00483-JAG Document 169-4 Filed 04/15/26 Page 6 of 6 PagelD# 2538 ... Signature Waived Pursuant to Rule 1:13 Jimmy F. Robinson, Esquire Ogletree Deakins 901 East Byrd Street Suite 1300 Richmond, VA 23219 804-663-2330 jimmy.robinson@ogletree.com Counsel for Cyberlux Corp. & Mark D. Schmidt .......
eventattribution
Hearing described in the order.
Read the anchor · page 2
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 169-4 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID#2534. EXHIBIT E VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, Case No.: CL24-3910 CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants. CONSENT FINAL ORDER On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq., appeared by and through counsel before this Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented, the Court makes the following ruling: It appearing that this matter has been previously visited by the court when Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on September 19, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order (First Motion) entered between Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The Defendants objected and the Court allowed the parties to brief the issues, after which the Court entered a written "Opinion and Order" dated October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion. As part of the October 30, 2025, order, the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid, and ' While the Receivership names Mark D. Schmidt, individually, as a Judgment Debtor, the Receiver has filed an Order in Texas, which has yet to be entered, removing Mark D. Schmidt, individually, from the terms of the Receivership Order in Texas.
eventattribution
Handwritten entry date on the final order.
Read the anchor · page 5
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 169-4 Filed 04/15/26 Page 5 of 6 PagelD# 2537 makes no ruling on whether the Defendants had standing to claim defective notice and makes no ruling on whether the Defendants have any appellate rights. It is SO ORDERED. ENTERED This 18th day of December, 2025 Honorable Jacqueline S. McClenney, Presiding Judge Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, Virginia WE ASK FOR THIS: Teste: EDWARD F. JEWETT, CLERK Charles A. Gavin, VSB#31391 [Clerk/deputy signature mark; name not independently transcribed.] Rudy Coyner, Attorneys at Law 13271 Rivers Bend Blvd. Chester, Virginia 23836 (804) 748-3600, ext. 306 (804) 748-4671 facsimile E-mail: cgavin@rudycoyner.com Counsel for Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC [Signature mark] Vernon E. Inge, Jr. #32699 Robert N. Drewry, VSB #91282 Whiteford Taylor & Preston, LLP Two James Center 1021 E. Cary Street, Suite 2001 Richmond, VA 23219 804.977.3301 804.977.3291 Facsimile vinge@whitefordlaw.com rdrewry@whitefordlaw.com Counsel for Robert W. Berleth, Receiver ..... 4
inferenceinference
The source establishes an entered joint judgment based on receiver agreement, while expressly leaving notice-standing and appellate-right qu
The source establishes an entered joint judgment based on receiver agreement, while expressly leaving notice-standing and appellate-right questions unruled. Calling it consent does not establish personal assent by defendants or erase those reservations.
otherattribution
Complete supplied 6-page source reviewed at SHA-256 350b7cf406c43ea15dd279aa146e5feb2c0e4bb2f9244b3ffce1ea2bd14d62ff. Source assertions, ori
Complete supplied 6-page source reviewed at SHA-256 350b7cf406c43ea15dd279aa146e5feb2c0e4bb2f9244b3ffce1ea2bd14d62ff. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. Own entire six-page image reading, all substantive text and footnote; OCR compared page by page. Outer federal filing and inner Richmond exhibit identity retained. December18 handwritten entry date verified visually; autograph marks observed without independent authentication.
Read the anchor · page 1
Case3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document169-4 Filed04/15/26 Page1of6 PageID2533. EXHIBIT4.
questionquestion
What later appellate, receivership and satisfaction records establish the continuing effect and unpaid balance of this judgment?
distillateobservation
CONNECT
Reviewed relationships
The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.
Defence counsel did not appear and had moved to quash on scheduling grounds. The court says it reviewed the opposition, supporting exhibits and reply and denies quash. It expressly makes no ruling on defendants’ standing to claim defective notice and no ruling on their appellate rights. Those reservations must not be converted into adjudication against all notice or appellate arguments.supportsWhat later appellate, receivership and satisfaction records establish the continuing effect and unpaid balance of this judgment?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Defence counsel did not appear and had moved to quash on scheduling grounds. The court says it reviewed the opposition, supporting exhibits and reply and denies quash. It expressly makes no ruling on defendants’ standing to claim defective notice and no ruling on their appellate rights. Those reservations must not be converted into adjudication against all notice or appellate arguments.supportsThe source establishes an entered joint judgment based on receiver agreement, while expressly leaving notice-standing and appellate-right questions unruled. Calling it consent does not establish personal assent by defendants or erase those reservations.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The court recites a September19 joint motion and its October30 opinion holding the CL22-3882 settlement valid. Its description says the Receiver acted “on behalf of the Plaintiffs”, despite the opening description of defendants represented by the Receiver. The text is preserved as printed rather than silently resolving that internal attribution inconsistency.supportsWhat later appellate, receivership and satisfaction records establish the continuing effect and unpaid balance of this judgment?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The order says the receivership was properly recorded in Richmond without objection and identifies JudgeMichaelGomez’s May22,2025 appointment in the129th Judicial Court of Harris County. The Texas cause number is printed2024448085. Footnote1 says an order removing Schmidt individually from the receivership had been filed in Texas but had yet to be entered; this source does not establish that removal occurred.supportsWhat later appellate, receivership and satisfaction records establish the continuing effect and unpaid balance of this judgment?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The order awards $25,250.50 in costs including reasonable attorney fees and postjudgment interest at6%perannum from entry. Remaining motions are moot; complaint and countercomplaint are dismissed with prejudice; the cause is ended and may be stricken upon entry. It supplies no payment or satisfaction evidence.supportsWhat later appellate, receivership and satisfaction records establish the continuing effect and unpaid balance of this judgment?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
EDVA Document169-4 filedApril15,2026 supplies Exhibit4 divider and an inner ExhibitE Richmond Circuit Court consent final order inCL24-3910, Atlantic Wave Holdings and Secure Community v Cyberlux and MarkD.Schmidt individually. It records a December16,2025 hearing on dissolving the stay and entering the order.supportsThe source establishes an entered joint judgment based on receiver agreement, while expressly leaving notice-standing and appellate-right questions unruled. Calling it consent does not establish personal assent by defendants or erase those reservations.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The court recounts staying its first motion pending represented Texas proceedings, then describes a November4 appellate abatement treating the case as closed and removing it from the docket, and November11 denial of an emergency stay. These are this order’s descriptions of Texas exhibits referenced but not reproduced here. The Receiver did not object to the second motion.supportsWhat later appellate, receivership and satisfaction records establish the continuing effect and unpaid balance of this judgment?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
EDVA Document169-4 filedApril15,2026 supplies Exhibit4 divider and an inner ExhibitE Richmond Circuit Court consent final order inCL24-3910, Atlantic Wave Holdings and Secure Community v Cyberlux and MarkD.Schmidt individually. It records a December16,2025 hearing on dissolving the stay and entering the order.supportsWhat later appellate, receivership and satisfaction records establish the continuing effect and unpaid balance of this judgment?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The court concludes the Receiver has authority to control or manage litigation incident to his role and that the Receiver and plaintiffs agreed to judgment. It grants Atlantic Wave and Secure a negotiated $6,000,000 compensatory judgment jointly and severally against Cyberlux and MarkD.Schmidt individually to resolve the complaint claims.supportsWhat later appellate, receivership and satisfaction records establish the continuing effect and unpaid balance of this judgment?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The court recites a September19 joint motion and its October30 opinion holding the CL22-3882 settlement valid. Its description says the Receiver acted “on behalf of the Plaintiffs”, despite the opening description of defendants represented by the Receiver. The text is preserved as printed rather than silently resolving that internal attribution inconsistency.supportsThe source establishes an entered joint judgment based on receiver agreement, while expressly leaving notice-standing and appellate-right questions unruled. Calling it consent does not establish personal assent by defendants or erase those reservations.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The entry line bears December18,2025 and JudgeJacquelineS.McClenney’s designation/signature. Plaintiffs’ counsel CharlesA.Gavin and receiver counsel VernonE.IngeJr/RobertN.Drewry appear under “WE ASK FOR THIS”. Defendant counsel JimmyF.Robinson’s block instead says signature waived pursuant toRule1:13. The waiver is not evidence that defendant counsel signed or assented. A clerk certification stamp is visible; no independent signature authentication was performed.supportsThe source establishes an entered joint judgment based on receiver agreement, while expressly leaving notice-standing and appellate-right questions unruled. Calling it consent does not establish personal assent by defendants or erase those reservations.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The court concludes the Receiver has authority to control or manage litigation incident to his role and that the Receiver and plaintiffs agreed to judgment. It grants Atlantic Wave and Secure a negotiated $6,000,000 compensatory judgment jointly and severally against Cyberlux and MarkD.Schmidt individually to resolve the complaint claims.supportsThe source establishes an entered joint judgment based on receiver agreement, while expressly leaving notice-standing and appellate-right questions unruled. Calling it consent does not establish personal assent by defendants or erase those reservations.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The court recites a September19 joint motion and its October30 opinion holding the CL22-3882 settlement valid. Its description says the Receiver acted “on behalf of the Plaintiffs”, despite the opening description of defendants represented by the Receiver. The text is preserved as printed rather than silently resolving that internal attribution inconsistency.supportsWhat later appellate, receivership and satisfaction records establish the continuing effect and unpaid balance of this judgment?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The entry line bears December18,2025 and JudgeJacquelineS.McClenney’s designation/signature. Plaintiffs’ counsel CharlesA.Gavin and receiver counsel VernonE.IngeJr/RobertN.Drewry appear under “WE ASK FOR THIS”. Defendant counsel JimmyF.Robinson’s block instead says signature waived pursuant toRule1:13. The waiver is not evidence that defendant counsel signed or assented. A clerk certification stamp is visible; no independent signature authentication was performed.supportsWhat later appellate, receivership and satisfaction records establish the continuing effect and unpaid balance of this judgment?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Defence counsel did not appear and had moved to quash on scheduling grounds. The court says it reviewed the opposition, supporting exhibits and reply and denies quash. It expressly makes no ruling on defendants’ standing to claim defective notice and no ruling on their appellate rights. Those reservations must not be converted into adjudication against all notice or appellate arguments.supportsWhat later appellate, receivership and satisfaction records establish the continuing effect and unpaid balance of this judgment?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The court recounts staying its first motion pending represented Texas proceedings, then describes a November4 appellate abatement treating the case as closed and removing it from the docket, and November11 denial of an emergency stay. These are this order’s descriptions of Texas exhibits referenced but not reproduced here. The Receiver did not object to the second motion.supportsWhat later appellate, receivership and satisfaction records establish the continuing effect and unpaid balance of this judgment?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
EDVA Document169-4 filedApril15,2026 supplies Exhibit4 divider and an inner ExhibitE Richmond Circuit Court consent final order inCL24-3910, Atlantic Wave Holdings and Secure Community v Cyberlux and MarkD.Schmidt individually. It records a December16,2025 hearing on dissolving the stay and entering the order.supportsWhat later appellate, receivership and satisfaction records establish the continuing effect and unpaid balance of this judgment?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The court concludes the Receiver has authority to control or manage litigation incident to his role and that the Receiver and plaintiffs agreed to judgment. It grants Atlantic Wave and Secure a negotiated $6,000,000 compensatory judgment jointly and severally against Cyberlux and MarkD.Schmidt individually to resolve the complaint claims.supportsWhat later appellate, receivership and satisfaction records establish the continuing effect and unpaid balance of this judgment?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The court recounts staying its first motion pending represented Texas proceedings, then describes a November4 appellate abatement treating the case as closed and removing it from the docket, and November11 denial of an emergency stay. These are this order’s descriptions of Texas exhibits referenced but not reproduced here. The Receiver did not object to the second motion.supportsThe source establishes an entered joint judgment based on receiver agreement, while expressly leaving notice-standing and appellate-right questions unruled. Calling it consent does not establish personal assent by defendants or erase those reservations.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The entry line bears December18,2025 and JudgeJacquelineS.McClenney’s designation/signature. Plaintiffs’ counsel CharlesA.Gavin and receiver counsel VernonE.IngeJr/RobertN.Drewry appear under “WE ASK FOR THIS”. Defendant counsel JimmyF.Robinson’s block instead says signature waived pursuant toRule1:13. The waiver is not evidence that defendant counsel signed or assented. A clerk certification stamp is visible; no independent signature authentication was performed.supportsWhat later appellate, receivership and satisfaction records establish the continuing effect and unpaid balance of this judgment?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The order awards $25,250.50 in costs including reasonable attorney fees and postjudgment interest at6%perannum from entry. Remaining motions are moot; complaint and countercomplaint are dismissed with prejudice; the cause is ended and may be stricken upon entry. It supplies no payment or satisfaction evidence.supportsWhat later appellate, receivership and satisfaction records establish the continuing effect and unpaid balance of this judgment?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The order awards $25,250.50 in costs including reasonable attorney fees and postjudgment interest at6%perannum from entry. Remaining motions are moot; complaint and countercomplaint are dismissed with prejudice; the cause is ended and may be stricken upon entry. It supplies no payment or satisfaction evidence.supportsThe source establishes an entered joint judgment based on receiver agreement, while expressly leaving notice-standing and appellate-right questions unruled. Calling it consent does not establish personal assent by defendants or erase those reservations.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The order says the receivership was properly recorded in Richmond without objection and identifies JudgeMichaelGomez’s May22,2025 appointment in the129th Judicial Court of Harris County. The Texas cause number is printed2024448085. Footnote1 says an order removing Schmidt individually from the receivership had been filed in Texas but had yet to be entered; this source does not establish that removal occurred.supportsThe source establishes an entered joint judgment based on receiver agreement, while expressly leaving notice-standing and appellate-right questions unruled. Calling it consent does not establish personal assent by defendants or erase those reservations.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The order says the receivership was properly recorded in Richmond without objection and identifies JudgeMichaelGomez’s May22,2025 appointment in the129th Judicial Court of Harris County. The Texas cause number is printed2024448085. Footnote1 says an order removing Schmidt individually from the receivership had been filed in Texas but had yet to be entered; this source does not establish that removal occurred.supportsWhat later appellate, receivership and satisfaction records establish the continuing effect and unpaid balance of this judgment?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
WEIGH
Explained weighting
A score appears only when its components and change threshold are published.
No published WEIGH run
The active Website Edition contains no applied score snapshot for this source or its connected objects. That means not assessed—not zero.