Context source · GT-S-90D63D3F4248

U.S. response asserting federal tax lien priority over competing creditors in interpleader action; most parties concede government priority to $1.15M plus interest; filed in HII Mission Technologies Corp. v. Cyberlux Corporation et al., No. 25-00483 (E.D. Va.), ECF No. 192

Metadata only

The original file isn’t published in this edition.

The record remains visible so the reader can see that it exists without mistaking metadata for access to the underlying document.

SHA-256 90d63d3f42480bf8a949…0 pages · 164 KB

DISTILLATES

What the source contains

Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.

observationobservation

EDVA192,22April2026;$1,153,457plus accrual from13April.

Read the anchor · page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. ) ) Interpleader Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) Case No. 3:25-cv-00483-JAG UNITED STATES’ MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO OTHER PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The United States of America submits this memorandum in response to the other parties’ motions for summary judgment. I. INTRODUCTION No party in this lawsuit has contested in their motions for summary judgment that the United States’ liens have sufficient priority to be paid from the Disputed Funds.1 In fact, most parties represent in their motions that the United States should indeed be fully paid, though Cyberlux Corporation incorrectly argues a reduction in interest is warranted. There is no genuine dispute of material fact that the United States’ tax liens have sufficient priority to be fully paid, and the United States is entitled to judgment as a matter of law disbursing $1,153,457, plus interest and other statutory additions accruing on that sum from April 13, 2026, through the date of disbursement, from the Disputed Funds. 1 Unless a term is defined in this memorandum, all defined terms here have the same meaning as in the United States’ Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 183). Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 4183

observationobservation

Proposed Legalist senior tranche$2.8million before stated15June2024cutoff.

Read the anchor · page 2

2 II. ARGUMENT The United States addresses the motions for summary judgment filed by other parties in turn. a. Legalist agrees the United States should be fully paid. The United States and Legalist SPV III, L.P. agree that their claims to the Disputed Funds have priority over the claims of all other parties to this suit and, as a result, this Court may grant summary judgment disbursing funds to both of them without resolving the claims of the other creditors. See Legalist Memo in Supp. Mot. Sum Jdmt. (ECF 175), p. 1. For that reason, the difference in priority between the United States and Legalist is not a material dispute. Should the relative priority between the United States and Legalist become an issue in this suit (if, for example, another large claim is found to have priority to their claims), the United States’ and Legalist’s claims should be paid in the following order: Priority Creditor Claim Amount 1 USA $40,882 2 USA $2,937.49 3 Legalist $2,800,000 4 USA $1,106,083.54 5 Legalist Balance of Legalist’s claim See United States’ Memo in Supp. Mot Sum. Jdmt. (ECF 183), p. 9. The basis for this order of priority is set forth in the United States’ Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 183, at pages 8-11. The United States’ first two claims (in the amounts of $40,882 and $2,937, plus interest) should be paid first because they were memorialized in NFTLs filed on August 21, 2017 and October 10, 2023, respectively. Davis Decl., ECF 183-1, ¶ 5. Legalist agrees with this. ECF 175, p. 15. Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 2 of 11 PageID# 4184

claimallegation

EDVA Document192 filed22April2026 requests summary judgment disbursing$1,153,457 plus statutory interest/additions from13April2026through pa

EDVA Document192 filed22April2026 requests summary judgment disbursing$1,153,457 plus statutory interest/additions from13April2026through payment. Harrington and Hambrick electronic signatures and CM/ECF service certification appear. This is a responsive memorandum, not a granted disbursement order.

Read the anchor · page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. ) ) Interpleader Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) Case No. 3:25-cv-00483-JAG UNITED STATES’ MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO OTHER PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The United States of America submits this memorandum in response to the other parties’ motions for summary judgment. I. INTRODUCTION No party in this lawsuit has contested in their motions for summary judgment that the United States’ liens have sufficient priority to be paid from the Disputed Funds.1 In fact, most parties represent in their motions that the United States should indeed be fully paid, though Cyberlux Corporation incorrectly argues a reduction in interest is warranted. There is no genuine dispute of material fact that the United States’ tax liens have sufficient priority to be fully paid, and the United States is entitled to judgment as a matter of law disbursing $1,153,457, plus interest and other statutory additions accruing on that sum from April 13, 2026, through the date of disbursement, from the Disputed Funds. 1 Unless a term is defined in this memorandum, all defined terms here have the same meaning as in the United States’ Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 183). Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 4183

claimallegation

Counsel describes common ownership/counsel for ARG/TAG by reference to Gonzalez declarations. It reports AWH/Secure Community, WeShield part

Counsel describes common ownership/counsel for ARG/TAG by reference to Gonzalez declarations. It reports AWH/Secure Community, WeShield parties and Receiver Berleth conceding federal priority, and uses more qualified language for ANPC and Fairwinds: their statements depend on proof/truth of the federal claim. Those conditional positions must not be rewritten as unconditional factual admissions by every party.

Read the anchor · page 6

6 c. The ARG Group, LLC’s interest and Thin Air Gear, LLC’s interest do not prevail over the United States’ liens.3 Neither The ARG Group, LLC (“ARG”) nor Thin Air Gear, LLC (“TAG”)4 have demonstrated that they have an interest superior to the United States’ interest under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321 & 6323(a). Furthermore, neither has demonstrated that that it has an “equitable lien” or “constructive trust” under applicable law. As a result, and as a matter of law, the United States’ liens have priority over their claims. As noted above, when federal tax liens are involved, “federal law determines the rights of priority among competing lienors.” Thomas Indus., 336 F. Supp. 3d at 35. The validity and priority of an IRS tax lien against other creditors – like ARG and TAG– is determined by 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321 & 6323. Section 6323 provides that tax liens “shall not be valid as against any purchaser, holder of a security interest, mechanic's lienor, or judgment lien creditor until notice thereof which meets the requirements of subsection (f) has been filed.” 26 U.S.C. § 6323(a). ARG and TAG contend that their “equitable liens” or “constructive trusts” arose on February 28, 2022 and September 5, 2023, respectively, before the filing of two of the three NFTLs. However, “[e]ven before a notice of tax lien is filed, a general tax lien [under § 6321] has 3 These parties argue that their claims have priority over all other creditors, but they do not specifically dispute the priority of the United States’ tax liens. They claim they were unable to do so because, they allege, the United States failed to serve its discovery on them. This is incorrect. Undersigned counsel certifies that, on February 19, 2026, the United States’ disclosures made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) were served by email on Stephen J. Stine, Esq. by emailing them to stine@stinelaw.com. Furthermore, on March 5, 2026, undersigned counsel served written responses to the single interrogatory and two document requests ordered at ECF 149 by email to stine@stinelaw.com. ECR 149 authorized service by email. In addition, these discovery papers were served on Stephen Neal, Esq. at sneal@dimuro.com, the email address for Mr. Neal that, as of today’s date, is set forth on the Court’s PACER docket. 4 These parties have common ownership and are represented by the same counsel. Decl. of majority member Anthony R. Gonzalez (ECF 165-1); Decl. of sole member Anthony R. Gonzalez (ECF 167-1). Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 6 of 11 PageID# 4188

claimallegation

WeShield labels comprise Assure Global LLC d/b/a WeShield, Roman Investments PR LLC, MAS USA MGT LLC and Michael Sinensky. The Receiver conc

Read the anchor · page 9

9 and because, even if it were, a constructive trust would not defeat the United States’ tax liens, the United States should retain its first priority to the Disputed Funds. d. Atlantic Waive Holdings and Secure Community concede the United States has priority. Atlantic Wave Holdings and Secure Community (together “AWH”) “asserts it is in 2nd position behind government, and ahead of all others.” AWH Memo. Supp. Mot. Sum. Jdmt. (ECF 180), p. 13. e. The WeShield Parties concede the United States has priority. Assure Global LLC d/b/a WeShield, Roman Investments PR LLC, MAS USA MGT LLC, and Michael Sinensky (collectively, “the WeShield Parties”) acknowledge that the United States “holds federal tax liens predating the WeShield Parties’ [UCC-1 Financing Statements] filings” and, as a result, concede that these tax liens have priority to their claims. WeShield Parties’ Memo. Supp. Mot. Sum. Jdmt. (ECF 186), p. 2. f. The Receiver concedes the United States’ liens have priority over its fee claims. Robert Berleth, as Receiver, concedes that the United States has priority over its fee claim and should be paid first. Receiver Memo. Supp. Mot. Sum. Jdmt. (ECF 176), p. 16. g. Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corporation appears to concede the United States’ liens have priority. Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corporation (“ANPC”) does not appear to contest that the United States’ claims have priority to its claims. ANPC Memo. Supp. Mot. Sum. Jdmt. (ECF 169), p. 14 (conceding that, provided the United States proves its claims, which it has done, ANPC “does not contest [its] priority to the Disputed Funds”). Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 9 of 11 PageID# 4191

claimallegation

The United States says other summary-judgment motions do not contest sufficient federal priority for full payment. It describes agreement wi

The United States says other summary-judgment motions do not contest sufficient federal priority for full payment. It describes agreement with Legalist that both can be paid without resolving junior disputes, treating their relative priority as immaterial only while the available fund suffices. That pragmatic position does not concede all Legalist advances outrank later federal liens.

Read the anchor · page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. ) ) Interpleader Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) Case No. 3:25-cv-00483-JAG UNITED STATES’ MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO OTHER PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The United States of America submits this memorandum in response to the other parties’ motions for summary judgment. I. INTRODUCTION No party in this lawsuit has contested in their motions for summary judgment that the United States’ liens have sufficient priority to be paid from the Disputed Funds.1 In fact, most parties represent in their motions that the United States should indeed be fully paid, though Cyberlux Corporation incorrectly argues a reduction in interest is warranted. There is no genuine dispute of material fact that the United States’ tax liens have sufficient priority to be fully paid, and the United States is entitled to judgment as a matter of law disbursing $1,153,457, plus interest and other statutory additions accruing on that sum from April 13, 2026, through the date of disbursement, from the Disputed Funds. 1 Unless a term is defined in this memorandum, all defined terms here have the same meaning as in the United States’ Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 183). Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 4183

claimallegation

The conditional priority table orders USA$40,882; USA$2,937.49; Legalist$2,800,000; USA$1,106,083.54; then Legalist’s remaining claim. The t

The conditional priority table orders USA$40,882; USA$2,937.49; Legalist$2,800,000; USA$1,106,083.54; then Legalist’s remaining claim. The three USA entries sum$1,149,903.03, below the$1,153,457 requested amount by$3,553.97. The brief references interest and prior ECF183; an accrual/date reconciliation is needed rather than silently treating both figures as identical.

Read the anchor · page 2

2 II. ARGUMENT The United States addresses the motions for summary judgment filed by other parties in turn. a. Legalist agrees the United States should be fully paid. The United States and Legalist SPV III, L.P. agree that their claims to the Disputed Funds have priority over the claims of all other parties to this suit and, as a result, this Court may grant summary judgment disbursing funds to both of them without resolving the claims of the other creditors. See Legalist Memo in Supp. Mot. Sum Jdmt. (ECF 175), p. 1. For that reason, the difference in priority between the United States and Legalist is not a material dispute. Should the relative priority between the United States and Legalist become an issue in this suit (if, for example, another large claim is found to have priority to their claims), the United States’ and Legalist’s claims should be paid in the following order: Priority Creditor Claim Amount 1 USA $40,882 2 USA $2,937.49 3 Legalist $2,800,000 4 USA $1,106,083.54 5 Legalist Balance of Legalist’s claim See United States’ Memo in Supp. Mot Sum. Jdmt. (ECF 183), p. 9. The basis for this order of priority is set forth in the United States’ Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 183, at pages 8-11. The United States’ first two claims (in the amounts of $40,882 and $2,937, plus interest) should be paid first because they were memorialized in NFTLs filed on August 21, 2017 and October 10, 2023, respectively. Davis Decl., ECF 183-1, ¶ 5. Legalist agrees with this. ECF 175, p. 15. Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 2 of 11 PageID# 4184

claimallegation

The United States identifies NFTLs dated21August2017,10October2023and30April2024, and Legalist’s1April2024UCC filing. It disputes Legalist’s

The United States identifies NFTLs dated21August2017,10October2023and30April2024, and Legalist’s1April2024UCC filing. It disputes Legalist’s position that its entire$13,608,702.73 claim precedes the April30tax lien, arguing under section6323that only$2.8million was advanced before15June2024, the stated46thday. Those filing and advance records are cited through ECF183/Davis but not attached.

Read the anchor · page 2

2 II. ARGUMENT The United States addresses the motions for summary judgment filed by other parties in turn. a. Legalist agrees the United States should be fully paid. The United States and Legalist SPV III, L.P. agree that their claims to the Disputed Funds have priority over the claims of all other parties to this suit and, as a result, this Court may grant summary judgment disbursing funds to both of them without resolving the claims of the other creditors. See Legalist Memo in Supp. Mot. Sum Jdmt. (ECF 175), p. 1. For that reason, the difference in priority between the United States and Legalist is not a material dispute. Should the relative priority between the United States and Legalist become an issue in this suit (if, for example, another large claim is found to have priority to their claims), the United States’ and Legalist’s claims should be paid in the following order: Priority Creditor Claim Amount 1 USA $40,882 2 USA $2,937.49 3 Legalist $2,800,000 4 USA $1,106,083.54 5 Legalist Balance of Legalist’s claim See United States’ Memo in Supp. Mot Sum. Jdmt. (ECF 183), p. 9. The basis for this order of priority is set forth in the United States’ Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 183, at pages 8-11. The United States’ first two claims (in the amounts of $40,882 and $2,937, plus interest) should be paid first because they were memorialized in NFTLs filed on August 21, 2017 and October 10, 2023, respectively. Davis Decl., ECF 183-1, ¶ 5. Legalist agrees with this. ECF 175, p. 15. Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 2 of 11 PageID# 4184

claimallegation

Government counsel opposes Cyberlux’s requested$250,000interest reduction and proposed$899,776.34payment, arguing statutory interest runs un

Government counsel opposes Cyberlux’s requested$250,000interest reduction and proposed$899,776.34payment, arguing statutory interest runs until payment and general equity cannot override it. Counsel also says Cyberlux seeks$2.4million for itself before taxes and is in default for failure to answer. These are attributed arguments and procedural assertions, not an independent docket finding.

Read the anchor · page 4

4 b. Cyberlux agrees the United States should be paid, but incorrectly contends a reduction of interest is warranted. Cyberlux Corporation does not dispute it owes over $1 million in unpaid employment taxes and, remarkably, asks for $2.4 million for itself before paying these lawful debts in full. 2 Cyberlux asks that $250,000 in interest be reduced from the United States claim, asking that United States be paid $899,776.34. Cyberlux’s Memo in Supp. Mot. Sum. Jdmt. (ECF 188), p. 16. In support of its request, Cyberlux makes three points relevant to the United States’ claims to the Disputed Funds. Each is without merit. First, Cyberlux asks this Court to use its “equitable authority” to stop the accrual of interest on the United States’ claims. Id. at 5. This Court should deny that request because it contravenes federal statute. Under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6601 & 6621, interest accrues on underpayment of tax from the due date through the date of payment. Under 26 U.S.C. § 6321, the amount due, “including any interest,” is a lien on all the taxpayer’s “property and rights to property,” including the Disputed Funds. Cyberlux cites to Sanders v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 292 U.S. 190, 194 (1934) and State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523 (1967) only for the general proposition that this Court has “equitable discretion” over the Disputed Funds. Cyberlux asks this Court to invoke such discretion to stop the accrual of interest. But neither the Court in Sanders nor in Tashire capped interest accruing on amounts due. And broad, undefined principles of equity do not nullify the Internal Revenue Code. See Richardson v. Smith, 301 F.2d 305, 306 (3d Cir. 1991) (“[T]axation is a game which must be played strictly in accordance with the rules.” (quoted in Ewing v. United States, 914 F.2d 499, 501 (4th Cir. 1990)). 2 Cyberlux is in default for failure to file an answer. Its motion should be denied on that ground alone. Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 4 of 11 PageID# 4186

claimallegation

The United States argues its liens reach all Cyberlux property/rights including receivables, need not arise from the drone contract, and req

The United States argues its liens reach all Cyberlux property/rights including receivables, need not arise from the drone contract, and require no receivable-specific property description in an NFTL. This preserves the government’s stated answer to Cyberlux’s blanket-lien objection without treating the brief as the controlling ruling.

Read the anchor · page 5

5 Second, Cyberlux questions the United States’ right to the Disputed Funds on the grounds that the United States’ lien does not arise from Cyberlux’s contract with Plaintiff HII Mission Technologies Corp. or from Cyberlux’s production of drones. Cyberlux Memo in Supp. Mot. Sum. Jdmt. (ECF 188), p. 11. This is irrelevant. The United States’ tax liens attach to all property and rights to property of Cyberlux, whether that would be Cyberlux’s real estate, cash, or, as is the case here, accounts receivable. 26 U.S.C. § 6321; Drye v. United States, 528 U.S. 49, 56 (1999). Third, as it did in its Motion to Dismiss (ECF 85), Cyberlux argues that the tax liens are ineffective because they are “blanket liens against Cyberlux’s property generally and were not specifically perfected against the HII receivables.” Cyberlux Memo. Supp. Mot. Sum. Jdmt. (ECF 188), p. 14. This is incorrect. A Notice of Federal Tax Lien need not identify specific property and, in fact, such notices rarely do. United States v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co., 368 U.S. 291, 296 (1961) (finding that state statute purporting to require that NFTLs describe specific property “placed obstacles to the enforcement of federal tax liens that Congress had not permitted”); Shaw v. United States, 331 F.2d 493, 497 (9th Cir. 1964) (“The notice of lien with respect to the husband's taxes did not, and need not, describe any specific property.”); In re May Reporting Servs., Inc., 115 B.R. 652, 656 (Bankr. D.S.D. 1990) (“The lien need not specifically describe any property.”). The NFTLs properly perfected the United States’ lien on all of Cyberlux’s “property and rights to property,” including its rights to the Disputed Funds. 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321, 6323. Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 5 of 11 PageID# 4187

claimallegation

Against ARG and Thin Air Gear, the United States argues alleged equitable liens/constructive trusts fall outside section6323(a)’s four prote

Against ARG and Thin Air Gear, the United States argues alleged equitable liens/constructive trusts fall outside section6323(a)’s four protected categories and that prior assessments can outrank them despite later notices. It reports their claimed interest dates as28February2022and5September2023and challenges their showing of purchaser, security-interest-holder, mechanic’s-lienor or judgment-lien-creditor status before the NFTLs. This addresses their asserted priority theory, not whether every underlying contract debt exists.

Read the anchor · page 6

6 c. The ARG Group, LLC’s interest and Thin Air Gear, LLC’s interest do not prevail over the United States’ liens.3 Neither The ARG Group, LLC (“ARG”) nor Thin Air Gear, LLC (“TAG”)4 have demonstrated that they have an interest superior to the United States’ interest under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321 & 6323(a). Furthermore, neither has demonstrated that that it has an “equitable lien” or “constructive trust” under applicable law. As a result, and as a matter of law, the United States’ liens have priority over their claims. As noted above, when federal tax liens are involved, “federal law determines the rights of priority among competing lienors.” Thomas Indus., 336 F. Supp. 3d at 35. The validity and priority of an IRS tax lien against other creditors – like ARG and TAG– is determined by 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321 & 6323. Section 6323 provides that tax liens “shall not be valid as against any purchaser, holder of a security interest, mechanic's lienor, or judgment lien creditor until notice thereof which meets the requirements of subsection (f) has been filed.” 26 U.S.C. § 6323(a). ARG and TAG contend that their “equitable liens” or “constructive trusts” arose on February 28, 2022 and September 5, 2023, respectively, before the filing of two of the three NFTLs. However, “[e]ven before a notice of tax lien is filed, a general tax lien [under § 6321] has 3 These parties argue that their claims have priority over all other creditors, but they do not specifically dispute the priority of the United States’ tax liens. They claim they were unable to do so because, they allege, the United States failed to serve its discovery on them. This is incorrect. Undersigned counsel certifies that, on February 19, 2026, the United States’ disclosures made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) were served by email on Stephen J. Stine, Esq. by emailing them to stine@stinelaw.com. Furthermore, on March 5, 2026, undersigned counsel served written responses to the single interrogatory and two document requests ordered at ECF 149 by email to stine@stinelaw.com. ECR 149 authorized service by email. In addition, these discovery papers were served on Stephen Neal, Esq. at sneal@dimuro.com, the email address for Mr. Neal that, as of today’s date, is set forth on the Court’s PACER docket. 4 These parties have common ownership and are represented by the same counsel. Decl. of majority member Anthony R. Gonzalez (ECF 165-1); Decl. of sole member Anthony R. Gonzalez (ECF 167-1). Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 6 of 11 PageID# 4188

claimallegation

Alternatively, the government argues ARG’s distributor agreement identifies no specific secured res or security intent, and TAG’s September2

Alternatively, the government argues ARG’s distributor agreement identifies no specific secured res or security intent, and TAG’s September2023kit-bag invoice does not create an equitable lien in the later interpleaded money. It characterises their constructive-trust allegations as ordinary contract claims, invoking cited Virginia authorities. The actual agreement/invoice and full opposing evidence are not included; this is the government’s merits challenge.

Read the anchor · page 7

7 priority over all other claims except the claims of secured creditors, judgment lien creditors, purchasers, and mechanic's lienors.” Indus. Bank of Washington v. Techmatics Techs., Inc., 763 F. Supp. 629, 636 (D.D.C. 1991) (emphasis added); United States v. Bond, 279 F.2d 837, 841 (4th Cir. 1960) (Congress “require[ed] recordation of the federal tax lien to render it valid as against” only the four categories of interests set forth in § 6323(a)). Here, neither ARG nor TAG have priority because their alleged pre-NFTL “equitable liens” and “constructive trusts” do not fall within any of the four exceptions under § 6323(a), and the tax liens that arose years earlier on the date of the IRS assessments against Cyberlux have priority even though notices of those liens were filed after the dates ARG and TAG say they obtained the “equitable liens” and “constructive trusts.” ARG and TAG have not shown – nor have they attempted to show – that they were a “purchaser, holder of a security interest, mechanic's lienor, or judgment lien creditor” before the United States filed the NFTLs. 26 U.S.C. § 6323(a). To the contrary, each argues only that it had an “equitable lien” or “constructive trust” before the NFTLs. ECF 167, p. 15; ECF 165, p. 2; see also Distributor Partner Agreement, Ex. 1 to ARG’s Memo. in Supp. of Mot. Sum. Jdmt. But such “equitable liens” and “constructive trusts” are not one of the four enumerated exceptions that would entitle these creditors to priority under the governing statute, 26 U.S.C. § 6323(a). Even if an equitable lien or constructive trust could prevail over a federal tax lien under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321 & 6323 – which they cannot for the reasons set forth above – ARG and TAG have failed to demonstrate that they are entitled to an “equitable lien” or “constructive trust” on the Disputed Funds. To impose an equitable lien, one must prove there is “(1) a debt, duty or obligation between the parties; (2) specific property or res to which the debt or obligation attaches; and Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 7 of 11 PageID# 4189

claimallegation

Footnote3 disputes alleged discovery non-service: counsel certifies February19Rule26disclosures and March5responses to one interrogatory/two

Footnote3 disputes alleged discovery non-service: counsel certifies February19Rule26disclosures and March5responses to one interrogatory/two document requests were emailed to Stephen J. Stine, and papers also went to Stephen Neal’s docket address. It cites ECF149email authorisation. The emails, delivery receipts and order are not attached, so this is a certification of sending rather than independent proof of receipt/completeness.

Read the anchor · page 6

6 c. The ARG Group, LLC’s interest and Thin Air Gear, LLC’s interest do not prevail over the United States’ liens.3 Neither The ARG Group, LLC (“ARG”) nor Thin Air Gear, LLC (“TAG”)4 have demonstrated that they have an interest superior to the United States’ interest under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321 & 6323(a). Furthermore, neither has demonstrated that that it has an “equitable lien” or “constructive trust” under applicable law. As a result, and as a matter of law, the United States’ liens have priority over their claims. As noted above, when federal tax liens are involved, “federal law determines the rights of priority among competing lienors.” Thomas Indus., 336 F. Supp. 3d at 35. The validity and priority of an IRS tax lien against other creditors – like ARG and TAG– is determined by 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321 & 6323. Section 6323 provides that tax liens “shall not be valid as against any purchaser, holder of a security interest, mechanic's lienor, or judgment lien creditor until notice thereof which meets the requirements of subsection (f) has been filed.” 26 U.S.C. § 6323(a). ARG and TAG contend that their “equitable liens” or “constructive trusts” arose on February 28, 2022 and September 5, 2023, respectively, before the filing of two of the three NFTLs. However, “[e]ven before a notice of tax lien is filed, a general tax lien [under § 6321] has 3 These parties argue that their claims have priority over all other creditors, but they do not specifically dispute the priority of the United States’ tax liens. They claim they were unable to do so because, they allege, the United States failed to serve its discovery on them. This is incorrect. Undersigned counsel certifies that, on February 19, 2026, the United States’ disclosures made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) were served by email on Stephen J. Stine, Esq. by emailing them to stine@stinelaw.com. Furthermore, on March 5, 2026, undersigned counsel served written responses to the single interrogatory and two document requests ordered at ECF 149 by email to stine@stinelaw.com. ECR 149 authorized service by email. In addition, these discovery papers were served on Stephen Neal, Esq. at sneal@dimuro.com, the email address for Mr. Neal that, as of today’s date, is set forth on the Court’s PACER docket. 4 These parties have common ownership and are represented by the same counsel. Decl. of majority member Anthony R. Gonzalez (ECF 165-1); Decl. of sole member Anthony R. Gonzalez (ECF 167-1). Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 6 of 11 PageID# 4188

entityobservation

United States of America

Read the anchor · page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. ) ) Interpleader Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) Case No. 3:25-cv-00483-JAG UNITED STATES’ MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO OTHER PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The United States of America submits this memorandum in response to the other parties’ motions for summary judgment. I. INTRODUCTION No party in this lawsuit has contested in their motions for summary judgment that the United States’ liens have sufficient priority to be paid from the Disputed Funds.1 In fact, most parties represent in their motions that the United States should indeed be fully paid, though Cyberlux Corporation incorrectly argues a reduction in interest is warranted. There is no genuine dispute of material fact that the United States’ tax liens have sufficient priority to be fully paid, and the United States is entitled to judgment as a matter of law disbursing $1,153,457, plus interest and other statutory additions accruing on that sum from April 13, 2026, through the date of disbursement, from the Disputed Funds. 1 Unless a term is defined in this memorandum, all defined terms here have the same meaning as in the United States’ Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 183). Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 4183

entityobservation

Jonathan H. Hambrick

Read the anchor · page 11

11 Washington, DC 20044 Tel: (202) 353-1882 Fax: (202) 514-6866 William.J.Harrington@usdoj.gov Elizabeth.Pruitt@usdoj.gov -andTODD BLANCHE Acting Attorney General /s/ Jonathan H. Hambrick JONATHAN H. HAMBRICK VSB NO. 37590 Assistant United States Attorney Eastern District of Virginia 919 E. Main Street, Suite 1900 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 819-5400 Fax: (804) 771-2316 E-mail: jay.h.hambrick@usdoj.gov Counsel to the United States CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on April 22, 2026, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record. /s/ William J. Harrington WILLIAM J. HARRINGTON ELIZABETH PRUITT Trial Attorneys, Civil Division Tax Litigation Branch U.S. Department of Justice Post Office Box 227 Washington, DC 20044 Tel: (202) 353-1882 Fax: (202) 514-6866 William.J.Harrington@usdoj.gov Elizabeth.Pruitt@usdoj.gov Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 11 of 11 PageID# 4193

entityobservation

Stephen J. Stine

Read the anchor · page 6

6 c. The ARG Group, LLC’s interest and Thin Air Gear, LLC’s interest do not prevail over the United States’ liens.3 Neither The ARG Group, LLC (“ARG”) nor Thin Air Gear, LLC (“TAG”)4 have demonstrated that they have an interest superior to the United States’ interest under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321 & 6323(a). Furthermore, neither has demonstrated that that it has an “equitable lien” or “constructive trust” under applicable law. As a result, and as a matter of law, the United States’ liens have priority over their claims. As noted above, when federal tax liens are involved, “federal law determines the rights of priority among competing lienors.” Thomas Indus., 336 F. Supp. 3d at 35. The validity and priority of an IRS tax lien against other creditors – like ARG and TAG– is determined by 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321 & 6323. Section 6323 provides that tax liens “shall not be valid as against any purchaser, holder of a security interest, mechanic's lienor, or judgment lien creditor until notice thereof which meets the requirements of subsection (f) has been filed.” 26 U.S.C. § 6323(a). ARG and TAG contend that their “equitable liens” or “constructive trusts” arose on February 28, 2022 and September 5, 2023, respectively, before the filing of two of the three NFTLs. However, “[e]ven before a notice of tax lien is filed, a general tax lien [under § 6321] has 3 These parties argue that their claims have priority over all other creditors, but they do not specifically dispute the priority of the United States’ tax liens. They claim they were unable to do so because, they allege, the United States failed to serve its discovery on them. This is incorrect. Undersigned counsel certifies that, on February 19, 2026, the United States’ disclosures made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) were served by email on Stephen J. Stine, Esq. by emailing them to stine@stinelaw.com. Furthermore, on March 5, 2026, undersigned counsel served written responses to the single interrogatory and two document requests ordered at ECF 149 by email to stine@stinelaw.com. ECR 149 authorized service by email. In addition, these discovery papers were served on Stephen Neal, Esq. at sneal@dimuro.com, the email address for Mr. Neal that, as of today’s date, is set forth on the Court’s PACER docket. 4 These parties have common ownership and are represented by the same counsel. Decl. of majority member Anthony R. Gonzalez (ECF 165-1); Decl. of sole member Anthony R. Gonzalez (ECF 167-1). Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 6 of 11 PageID# 4188

entityobservation

Stephen Neal

Read the anchor · page 6

6 c. The ARG Group, LLC’s interest and Thin Air Gear, LLC’s interest do not prevail over the United States’ liens.3 Neither The ARG Group, LLC (“ARG”) nor Thin Air Gear, LLC (“TAG”)4 have demonstrated that they have an interest superior to the United States’ interest under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321 & 6323(a). Furthermore, neither has demonstrated that that it has an “equitable lien” or “constructive trust” under applicable law. As a result, and as a matter of law, the United States’ liens have priority over their claims. As noted above, when federal tax liens are involved, “federal law determines the rights of priority among competing lienors.” Thomas Indus., 336 F. Supp. 3d at 35. The validity and priority of an IRS tax lien against other creditors – like ARG and TAG– is determined by 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321 & 6323. Section 6323 provides that tax liens “shall not be valid as against any purchaser, holder of a security interest, mechanic's lienor, or judgment lien creditor until notice thereof which meets the requirements of subsection (f) has been filed.” 26 U.S.C. § 6323(a). ARG and TAG contend that their “equitable liens” or “constructive trusts” arose on February 28, 2022 and September 5, 2023, respectively, before the filing of two of the three NFTLs. However, “[e]ven before a notice of tax lien is filed, a general tax lien [under § 6321] has 3 These parties argue that their claims have priority over all other creditors, but they do not specifically dispute the priority of the United States’ tax liens. They claim they were unable to do so because, they allege, the United States failed to serve its discovery on them. This is incorrect. Undersigned counsel certifies that, on February 19, 2026, the United States’ disclosures made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) were served by email on Stephen J. Stine, Esq. by emailing them to stine@stinelaw.com. Furthermore, on March 5, 2026, undersigned counsel served written responses to the single interrogatory and two document requests ordered at ECF 149 by email to stine@stinelaw.com. ECR 149 authorized service by email. In addition, these discovery papers were served on Stephen Neal, Esq. at sneal@dimuro.com, the email address for Mr. Neal that, as of today’s date, is set forth on the Court’s PACER docket. 4 These parties have common ownership and are represented by the same counsel. Decl. of majority member Anthony R. Gonzalez (ECF 165-1); Decl. of sole member Anthony R. Gonzalez (ECF 167-1). Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 6 of 11 PageID# 4188

entityobservation

Legalist SPV III, L.P.

Read the anchor · page 2

2 II. ARGUMENT The United States addresses the motions for summary judgment filed by other parties in turn. a. Legalist agrees the United States should be fully paid. The United States and Legalist SPV III, L.P. agree that their claims to the Disputed Funds have priority over the claims of all other parties to this suit and, as a result, this Court may grant summary judgment disbursing funds to both of them without resolving the claims of the other creditors. See Legalist Memo in Supp. Mot. Sum Jdmt. (ECF 175), p. 1. For that reason, the difference in priority between the United States and Legalist is not a material dispute. Should the relative priority between the United States and Legalist become an issue in this suit (if, for example, another large claim is found to have priority to their claims), the United States’ and Legalist’s claims should be paid in the following order: Priority Creditor Claim Amount 1 USA $40,882 2 USA $2,937.49 3 Legalist $2,800,000 4 USA $1,106,083.54 5 Legalist Balance of Legalist’s claim See United States’ Memo in Supp. Mot Sum. Jdmt. (ECF 183), p. 9. The basis for this order of priority is set forth in the United States’ Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 183, at pages 8-11. The United States’ first two claims (in the amounts of $40,882 and $2,937, plus interest) should be paid first because they were memorialized in NFTLs filed on August 21, 2017 and October 10, 2023, respectively. Davis Decl., ECF 183-1, ¶ 5. Legalist agrees with this. ECF 175, p. 15. Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 2 of 11 PageID# 4184

entityobservation

CYBERLUX CORPORATION

Read the anchor · page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. ) ) Interpleader Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) Case No. 3:25-cv-00483-JAG UNITED STATES’ MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO OTHER PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The United States of America submits this memorandum in response to the other parties’ motions for summary judgment. I. INTRODUCTION No party in this lawsuit has contested in their motions for summary judgment that the United States’ liens have sufficient priority to be paid from the Disputed Funds.1 In fact, most parties represent in their motions that the United States should indeed be fully paid, though Cyberlux Corporation incorrectly argues a reduction in interest is warranted. There is no genuine dispute of material fact that the United States’ tax liens have sufficient priority to be fully paid, and the United States is entitled to judgment as a matter of law disbursing $1,153,457, plus interest and other statutory additions accruing on that sum from April 13, 2026, through the date of disbursement, from the Disputed Funds. 1 Unless a term is defined in this memorandum, all defined terms here have the same meaning as in the United States’ Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 183). Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 4183

entityobservation

The ARG Group, LLC

Read the anchor · page 6

6 c. The ARG Group, LLC’s interest and Thin Air Gear, LLC’s interest do not prevail over the United States’ liens.3 Neither The ARG Group, LLC (“ARG”) nor Thin Air Gear, LLC (“TAG”)4 have demonstrated that they have an interest superior to the United States’ interest under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321 & 6323(a). Furthermore, neither has demonstrated that that it has an “equitable lien” or “constructive trust” under applicable law. As a result, and as a matter of law, the United States’ liens have priority over their claims. As noted above, when federal tax liens are involved, “federal law determines the rights of priority among competing lienors.” Thomas Indus., 336 F. Supp. 3d at 35. The validity and priority of an IRS tax lien against other creditors – like ARG and TAG– is determined by 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321 & 6323. Section 6323 provides that tax liens “shall not be valid as against any purchaser, holder of a security interest, mechanic's lienor, or judgment lien creditor until notice thereof which meets the requirements of subsection (f) has been filed.” 26 U.S.C. § 6323(a). ARG and TAG contend that their “equitable liens” or “constructive trusts” arose on February 28, 2022 and September 5, 2023, respectively, before the filing of two of the three NFTLs. However, “[e]ven before a notice of tax lien is filed, a general tax lien [under § 6321] has 3 These parties argue that their claims have priority over all other creditors, but they do not specifically dispute the priority of the United States’ tax liens. They claim they were unable to do so because, they allege, the United States failed to serve its discovery on them. This is incorrect. Undersigned counsel certifies that, on February 19, 2026, the United States’ disclosures made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) were served by email on Stephen J. Stine, Esq. by emailing them to stine@stinelaw.com. Furthermore, on March 5, 2026, undersigned counsel served written responses to the single interrogatory and two document requests ordered at ECF 149 by email to stine@stinelaw.com. ECR 149 authorized service by email. In addition, these discovery papers were served on Stephen Neal, Esq. at sneal@dimuro.com, the email address for Mr. Neal that, as of today’s date, is set forth on the Court’s PACER docket. 4 These parties have common ownership and are represented by the same counsel. Decl. of majority member Anthony R. Gonzalez (ECF 165-1); Decl. of sole member Anthony R. Gonzalez (ECF 167-1). Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 6 of 11 PageID# 4188

entityobservation

Thin Air Gear, LLC

Read the anchor · page 6

6 c. The ARG Group, LLC’s interest and Thin Air Gear, LLC’s interest do not prevail over the United States’ liens.3 Neither The ARG Group, LLC (“ARG”) nor Thin Air Gear, LLC (“TAG”)4 have demonstrated that they have an interest superior to the United States’ interest under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321 & 6323(a). Furthermore, neither has demonstrated that that it has an “equitable lien” or “constructive trust” under applicable law. As a result, and as a matter of law, the United States’ liens have priority over their claims. As noted above, when federal tax liens are involved, “federal law determines the rights of priority among competing lienors.” Thomas Indus., 336 F. Supp. 3d at 35. The validity and priority of an IRS tax lien against other creditors – like ARG and TAG– is determined by 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321 & 6323. Section 6323 provides that tax liens “shall not be valid as against any purchaser, holder of a security interest, mechanic's lienor, or judgment lien creditor until notice thereof which meets the requirements of subsection (f) has been filed.” 26 U.S.C. § 6323(a). ARG and TAG contend that their “equitable liens” or “constructive trusts” arose on February 28, 2022 and September 5, 2023, respectively, before the filing of two of the three NFTLs. However, “[e]ven before a notice of tax lien is filed, a general tax lien [under § 6321] has 3 These parties argue that their claims have priority over all other creditors, but they do not specifically dispute the priority of the United States’ tax liens. They claim they were unable to do so because, they allege, the United States failed to serve its discovery on them. This is incorrect. Undersigned counsel certifies that, on February 19, 2026, the United States’ disclosures made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) were served by email on Stephen J. Stine, Esq. by emailing them to stine@stinelaw.com. Furthermore, on March 5, 2026, undersigned counsel served written responses to the single interrogatory and two document requests ordered at ECF 149 by email to stine@stinelaw.com. ECR 149 authorized service by email. In addition, these discovery papers were served on Stephen Neal, Esq. at sneal@dimuro.com, the email address for Mr. Neal that, as of today’s date, is set forth on the Court’s PACER docket. 4 These parties have common ownership and are represented by the same counsel. Decl. of majority member Anthony R. Gonzalez (ECF 165-1); Decl. of sole member Anthony R. Gonzalez (ECF 167-1). Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 6 of 11 PageID# 4188

entityobservation

Robert Berleth

Read the anchor · page 9

9 and because, even if it were, a constructive trust would not defeat the United States’ tax liens, the United States should retain its first priority to the Disputed Funds. d. Atlantic Waive Holdings and Secure Community concede the United States has priority. Atlantic Wave Holdings and Secure Community (together “AWH”) “asserts it is in 2nd position behind government, and ahead of all others.” AWH Memo. Supp. Mot. Sum. Jdmt. (ECF 180), p. 13. e. The WeShield Parties concede the United States has priority. Assure Global LLC d/b/a WeShield, Roman Investments PR LLC, MAS USA MGT LLC, and Michael Sinensky (collectively, “the WeShield Parties”) acknowledge that the United States “holds federal tax liens predating the WeShield Parties’ [UCC-1 Financing Statements] filings” and, as a result, concede that these tax liens have priority to their claims. WeShield Parties’ Memo. Supp. Mot. Sum. Jdmt. (ECF 186), p. 2. f. The Receiver concedes the United States’ liens have priority over its fee claims. Robert Berleth, as Receiver, concedes that the United States has priority over its fee claim and should be paid first. Receiver Memo. Supp. Mot. Sum. Jdmt. (ECF 176), p. 16. g. Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corporation appears to concede the United States’ liens have priority. Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corporation (“ANPC”) does not appear to contest that the United States’ claims have priority to its claims. ANPC Memo. Supp. Mot. Sum. Jdmt. (ECF 169), p. 14 (conceding that, provided the United States proves its claims, which it has done, ANPC “does not contest [its] priority to the Disputed Funds”). Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 9 of 11 PageID# 4191

entityobservation

Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corporation

Read the anchor · page 9

9 and because, even if it were, a constructive trust would not defeat the United States’ tax liens, the United States should retain its first priority to the Disputed Funds. d. Atlantic Waive Holdings and Secure Community concede the United States has priority. Atlantic Wave Holdings and Secure Community (together “AWH”) “asserts it is in 2nd position behind government, and ahead of all others.” AWH Memo. Supp. Mot. Sum. Jdmt. (ECF 180), p. 13. e. The WeShield Parties concede the United States has priority. Assure Global LLC d/b/a WeShield, Roman Investments PR LLC, MAS USA MGT LLC, and Michael Sinensky (collectively, “the WeShield Parties”) acknowledge that the United States “holds federal tax liens predating the WeShield Parties’ [UCC-1 Financing Statements] filings” and, as a result, concede that these tax liens have priority to their claims. WeShield Parties’ Memo. Supp. Mot. Sum. Jdmt. (ECF 186), p. 2. f. The Receiver concedes the United States’ liens have priority over its fee claims. Robert Berleth, as Receiver, concedes that the United States has priority over its fee claim and should be paid first. Receiver Memo. Supp. Mot. Sum. Jdmt. (ECF 176), p. 16. g. Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corporation appears to concede the United States’ liens have priority. Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corporation (“ANPC”) does not appear to contest that the United States’ claims have priority to its claims. ANPC Memo. Supp. Mot. Sum. Jdmt. (ECF 169), p. 14 (conceding that, provided the United States proves its claims, which it has done, ANPC “does not contest [its] priority to the Disputed Funds”). Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 9 of 11 PageID# 4191

entityobservation

Fairwinds Technologies, LLC

Read the anchor · page 10

10 h. Fairwinds Technologies, LLC appears to concede the United States’ liens have priority. Fairwinds Technologies, LLC does not appear to contest that the United States’ claims have priority to its claims. Fairwinds’ Mot. Sum. Jdmt. (ECF 177), p. 2 (conceding that, provided that the United States’ allegations are true, those allegations would qualify the United States as secured creditor); Fairwinds’ Memo. Supp. Mot. Sum. Jdmt. (ECF 178), p. 5 (“Secured creditors take priority over unsecured creditors when creditors seek to have their debts satisfied by the same source of funds.”). III. CONCLUSION This Court should grant summary judgment in favor of the United states and disburse $1,153,457, plus statutory interst and additions accruing on that sum from April 13, 2026 through the date of disbursement, because there is no genuine dispute of material fact—and because no non-defaulting party appears to contest—that the United States’ tax liens have sufficient priority to be fully paid from the Disputed Funds. Dated: April 22, 2026 Respectfully submitted, BRETT A. SHUMATE Assistant Attorney General JOSHUA WU Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tax Litigation Branch /s/ William J. Harrington WILLIAM J. HARRINGTON ELIZABETH PRUITT Trial Attorneys, Civil Division Tax Litigation Branch U.S. Department of Justice Post Office Box 227 Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 10 of 11 PageID# 4192

entityobservation

William J. Harrington

Read the anchor · page 10

10 h. Fairwinds Technologies, LLC appears to concede the United States’ liens have priority. Fairwinds Technologies, LLC does not appear to contest that the United States’ claims have priority to its claims. Fairwinds’ Mot. Sum. Jdmt. (ECF 177), p. 2 (conceding that, provided that the United States’ allegations are true, those allegations would qualify the United States as secured creditor); Fairwinds’ Memo. Supp. Mot. Sum. Jdmt. (ECF 178), p. 5 (“Secured creditors take priority over unsecured creditors when creditors seek to have their debts satisfied by the same source of funds.”). III. CONCLUSION This Court should grant summary judgment in favor of the United states and disburse $1,153,457, plus statutory interst and additions accruing on that sum from April 13, 2026 through the date of disbursement, because there is no genuine dispute of material fact—and because no non-defaulting party appears to contest—that the United States’ tax liens have sufficient priority to be fully paid from the Disputed Funds. Dated: April 22, 2026 Respectfully submitted, BRETT A. SHUMATE Assistant Attorney General JOSHUA WU Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tax Litigation Branch /s/ William J. Harrington WILLIAM J. HARRINGTON ELIZABETH PRUITT Trial Attorneys, Civil Division Tax Litigation Branch U.S. Department of Justice Post Office Box 227 Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 10 of 11 PageID# 4192

eventattribution

Government files responsive memorandum and certifies CM/ECF service.

Read the anchor · page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. ) ) Interpleader Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) Case No. 3:25-cv-00483-JAG UNITED STATES’ MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO OTHER PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The United States of America submits this memorandum in response to the other parties’ motions for summary judgment. I. INTRODUCTION No party in this lawsuit has contested in their motions for summary judgment that the United States’ liens have sufficient priority to be paid from the Disputed Funds.1 In fact, most parties represent in their motions that the United States should indeed be fully paid, though Cyberlux Corporation incorrectly argues a reduction in interest is warranted. There is no genuine dispute of material fact that the United States’ tax liens have sufficient priority to be fully paid, and the United States is entitled to judgment as a matter of law disbursing $1,153,457, plus interest and other statutory additions accruing on that sum from April 13, 2026, through the date of disbursement, from the Disputed Funds. 1 Unless a term is defined in this memorandum, all defined terms here have the same meaning as in the United States’ Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 183). Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 4183

inferenceinference

Agreement that both senior claimants can be paid is conditional on fund sufficiency and leaves an advance-specific USA/Legalist priority dis

Agreement that both senior claimants can be paid is conditional on fund sufficiency and leaves an advance-specific USA/Legalist priority dispute alive.

inferenceinference

Reported non-opposition ranges from express concession to proof-conditioned noncontest; it does not substitute for proving tax amount and li

Reported non-opposition ranges from express concession to proof-conditioned noncontest; it does not substitute for proving tax amount and lien predicates.

otherattribution

Complete supplied 11-page source reviewed at SHA-256 90d63d3f42480bf8a949920b4dc07fed81b40ade09d479bdcf2105d17294afee. Source assertions, or

Complete supplied 11-page source reviewed at SHA-256 90d63d3f42480bf8a949920b4dc07fed81b40ade09d479bdcf2105d17294afee. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. All11native pages fully read; own images checked table, full service footnote and electronic signature/certificate pages. No OCR needed. One government responsive brief; quoted opposing positions do not become independently reviewed source statements.

Read the anchor · page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. ) ) Interpleader Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) Case No. 3:25-cv-00483-JAG UNITED STATES’ MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO OTHER PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The United States of America submits this memorandum in response to the other parties’ motions for summary judgment. I. INTRODUCTION No party in this lawsuit has contested in their motions for summary judgment that the United States’ liens have sufficient priority to be paid from the Disputed Funds.1 In fact, most parties represent in their motions that the United States should indeed be fully paid, though Cyberlux Corporation incorrectly argues a reduction in interest is warranted. There is no genuine dispute of material fact that the United States’ tax liens have sufficient priority to be fully paid, and the United States is entitled to judgment as a matter of law disbursing $1,153,457, plus interest and other statutory additions accruing on that sum from April 13, 2026, through the date of disbursement, from the Disputed Funds. 1 Unless a term is defined in this memorandum, all defined terms here have the same meaning as in the United States’ Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 183). Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 192 Filed 04/22/26 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 4183

questionquestion

Which dated tax/payoff schedules bridge the$1,149,903.03table sum and$1,153,457request and establish ongoing accrual?

questionquestion

What actual NFTLs and dated advance records establish the$2.8million cutoff and relevant priority predicates?

questionquestion

What full agreements, invoices and tracing evidence support or rebut the equitable-lien/constructive-trust theories?

questionquestion

What emails, service order and response contents resolve the discovery dispute?

distillateallegation

CONNECT

Reviewed relationships

The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.