Federal Communications Commission DA 18-454
 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
METRO TWO-WAY, LLC
Licensee of Various Authorizations in the Wireless 
Radio Services
Applicant for New Authorization
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WTB Docket No. 18-133 
FRN:  0023715899
Application File No. 0006481203
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE,
HEARING DESIGNATION ORDER
AND
NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING
Adopted:  May 2, 2018 Released:  May 3, 2018
By the Deputy Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. In this Order to Show Cause, Hearing Designation Order, and Notice of Opportunity for 
Hearing, we commence a hearing proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge to determine whether 
Metro Two-Way, LLC (Metro) is qualified to be and to remain a Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) licensee, and as a consequence thereof, whether any or all of its licenses should be 
revoked, and whether its pending application should be denied.
1
 
2. As discussed more fully below, based on the totality of the evidence, there are substantial 
and material questions of fact as to whether Metro repeatedly made misrepresentations to and lacked 
candor with the Commission in its submission of several applications in connection with various Wireless 
Radio Service authorizations.  
3. We issue this Order to Show Cause, Hearing Designation Order, and Notice of 
Opportunity for Hearing pursuant to sections 309(e), 312(a)(1), 312(a)(2), 312(a)(4), and 313(c) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act),
2
 and the delegated authority of the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau).
3
1
 A list of the authorizations held by Metro that are the subject of this Order is appended hereto as Attachment A.  
The pending application filed by Metro that is the subject of this Order is set forth in Attachment B. 
2
 See 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(e), 312(a)(1), 312(a)(2), 312(a)(4), 313(c).  
3
 See 47 CFR §§ 0.131, 0.331.
Federal Communications Commission DA 18-454 
2
II. BACKGROUND
4. Metro is a California company engaged in the business of providing two-way radio 
service in Los Angeles County, California.  Metro presently holds four licenses for Private Land Mobile 
Radio (PLMR) stations in the Los Angeles area.
4
5. Metro applied for its first license with the Commission in 2014.  On June 16, 2014, Metro 
submitted an application for a new license for PLMR Station WQUF826
5
 using Commission Form 601, 
entitled “FCC Application for Radio Service Authorization,” a form used for applications for radio 
service authorizations from the Bureau and from the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.
6
  
Under the heading “Basic Qualification Questions,” Question 50 asks whether “the Applicant or any party 
to this application, or any party directly or indirectly controlling the Applicant, [has] ever been convicted 
of a felony by any state or federal court.”
7
  Question 50 provides the Applicant with a place in which it 
can respond either “Y” for Yes or “N” for No.
8
  In connection with its application for a new license for 
PLMR Station WQUF826, Metro responded “N.”
9
  Metro also answered “N” to Question 50 in four 
subsequent Commission Form 601 submissions applying for new licenses,
10
 most recently on September 
29, 2014.
11
6. On October 14, 2014, Mobile Relay Associates (MRA) filed a Petition to Dismiss or 
Deny, or Informal Objection (Petition) to Metro’s September 29, 2014, application, alleging that the real 
party in interest was Acumen Communications (Acumen), which had received multiple Notices of 
Violation from the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau and was then the subject of an Enforcement 
Bureau investigation.
12
  Metro filed an opposition, disputing MRA’s allegation that Acumen was the real 
party in interest in the application, and stating that “Metro was started and is controlled by Hector 
Mosquera.”
13
  Mr. Mosquera is listed as the only manager of Metro on Form LLC-12 (Statement of 
Information), filed with the Secretary of State of California on June 5, 2014,
14
 and as the only officer of 
Metro on the Form SI-550 (Statement of Information), filed with the Secretary of State of California on 
October 23, 2017.
15
  Consequently, it appears from the evidence before the Bureau that Mr. Mosquera has 
controlled Metro since Metro’s June 16, 2014, submission of its first Commission application.
4
 See Attachment A, appended hereto. 
5
 See File No. 0006329910 (http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/applMain.jsp?applID=8373812).
6
 See 47 CFR § 1.913(a)(1).
7
 See, e.g., Commission Form 601 at Question 50.
8
 See id.
9
 See File No. 0006329910, Commission Form 601 at Question 50 
(http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/applMain.jsp?applID=8373812).
10
 See Attachment C, appended hereto.
11
 See File No. 0006481203, Commission Form 601 at Question 50 
(http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/applMain.jsp?applID=8583816).
12
 Petition of Mobile Relay Associates to Dismiss or Deny, or Informal Objection, Application File No. 
0006481203, at 2-4 (filed Oct. 14, 2014), available at 
http://appsint.fcc.gov/UlsEntry/attachments/attachmentViewRD.jsp?applType=search&fileKey=1853889939&attac
hmentKey=19504168&attachmentInd=applAttach.
13
 See Opposition of Metro Two-Way, LLC to Petition to Deny, at 1 (filed Oct. 27, 2014), available at 
http://appsint.fcc.gov/UlsEntry/attachments/attachmentViewRD.jsp;ATTACHMENTS=976GhH0Jy90QH2TzcHX
Federal Communications Commission DA 18-454 
3
(...continued from previous page)
myZD2PLS6scvc1pnPWQtQRpGMntKGKLZw!1039866126!NONE?applType=search&fileKey=929662729&attac
hmentKey=19516560&attachmentInd=applAttach. 
14
 Available at 
https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/SearchResults?SearchType=LPLLC&SearchCriteria=metro+two+way&Sear
chSubType=Keyword.  
15
 Available at 
https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/SearchResults?SearchType=NUMBER&SearchCriteria=C4072384.  It 
appears that Metro has changed from a limited liability corporation to a domestic stock corporation.  References 
herein to Metro apply to the entity as it was organized under both forms.
Federal Communications Commission DA 18-454
 
7. In addition to his rule with Metro, Mr. Mosquera was an officer and the sole shareholder 
of Acumen.
16
  MRA also filed an Informal Objection to several Acumen modification applications based 
on assertions that Acumen “knowingly lied” to the Commission when it responded “N” to Question 50 on 
these modification applications.
17
  MRA asserted that Mr. Mosquera had been convicted in March 1992 of 
possession for sale of a controlled substance, in violation of California Health Safety Code Section 11351, 
and sentenced to serve two years in California State Prison.
18
  These allegations raised substantial and 
material questions of fact as to whether Acumen had repeatedly made misrepresentations to and lacked 
candor with the Commission in submission of its various applications for Wireless Radio Service 
authorizations.  As a result, the Bureau commenced a hearing proceeding before the Administrative Law 
Judge (ALJ) to determine whether Acumen was qualified to be and remain a Commission licensee, and as 
a consequence thereof, whether any or all of its licenses should be revoked, and whether any or all of its 
then-pending applications should be denied.
19
  After Acumen failed to enter an appearance in the 
proceeding and to appear in person at a Show Cause Hearing ordered by the ALJ, the ALJ terminated the 
proceeding and certified the case to the Commission.
20
  The licenses were revoked in 2018.
21
III. DISCUSSION
8. Pursuant to section 309(e) of the Act,
 
the Commission is required to designate an 
application for evidentiary hearing if a substantial and material question of fact is presented regarding 
whether grant of the application would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
22 
  The 
character of an applicant is among those factors that the Commission considers in determining whether 
the applicant has the requisite qualifications to be a Commission licensee.
23
  
9. Misrepresentation/Lack of Candor and Section 1.17.  The Commission and the courts 
have recognized that “[t]he FCC relies heavily on the honesty and probity of its licensees in a regulatory 
system that is largely self-policing.”
24
  In considering an applicant’s character, one of the Commission’s 
primary purposes is to ensure that licensees will be truthful in their future dealings with the Commission.  
Full and clear disclosure of all material facts in every application is essential to the efficient 
16
 Acumen Communications, Order of Revocation, 33 FCC Rcd 4, 9, para. 17 (EB 2018) (Acumen Revocation 
Order).
17
 See Mobile Relay Associates Informal Objection, Application File Nos. 0005834762, 0005839763, 0005840938, 
0005962267, and 0006039610, at 1-3 (filed Jan. 26, 2015) (Informal Objection), available at 
http://appsint.fcc.gov/UlsEntry/attachments/attachmentViewRD.jsp?applType=search&fileKey=1269524174&attac
hmentKey=19587208&attachmentInd=applAttach; Mobile Relay Associates  Supplement to Petition to Dismiss or 
Deny, Or Informal Objection, Application File No. 0005614865, at 2 (filed Jan. 26, 2015) (Supplement to Petition), 
available at 
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsEntry/attachments/attachmentViewRD.jsp;ATTACHMENTS=w0ZVhNzHgG9mxTvJZ
8H9sMGvwJnLbdJ2FwpnZBhhZ0vK1QJvZk2s!-1594719211!-
1718746281?applType=search&fileKey=2056833799&attachmentKey=19587014&attachmentInd=applAttach.
18
 See Informal Objection at 1-3 and Abstract of Judgment attached thereto; Supplement to Petition at 1-3.
19
 See Acumen Communications, Order to Show Cause, Hearing Designation Order and Notice of Opportunity for 
Hearing, 32 FCC Rcd 243 (WTB MD 2017).
20
 See Acumen Communications, WT Docket No. 17-17, Order, FCC 17M-20 (ALJ rel. Apr. 10, 2017).  
21
 See Acumen Revocation Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 10, para. 19.  
22
 See 47 U.S.C. § 309(e).
23
 See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 308(b). 
24
 See, e.g., Contemporary Media Inc. v. FCC, 214 F.3d 187, 193 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
Federal Communications Commission DA 18-454 
2
administration of the Commission's licensing process, and proper analysis of an application is critically 
dependent on the accuracy and completeness of information and data that only the applicant can provide.  
Misrepresentation and lack of candor raise serious concerns as to the likelihood of such truthfulness.
25
  
10. Section 1.17(a)(1) of the Commission’s rules states that no person shall, in any written or 
oral statement of fact, intentionally provide material factual information that is incorrect or intentionally 
omit material information that is necessary to prevent any material factual statement that is made from 
being incorrect or misleading.
26
  We note that a misrepresentation is a false statement of fact made with 
the intent to deceive the Commission.
27
  Lack of candor is a concealment, evasion, or other failure to be 
fully informative, accompanied by an intent to deceive the Commission.
28
  A necessary and essential 
element of both misrepresentation and lack of candor is intent to deceive.
29
  Fraudulent intent can be 
found from “the fact of misrepresentation coupled with proof that the party making it had knowledge of 
its falsity.”
30
  Intent can also be found from motive or logical desire to deceive.
31
11. Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Commission’s rules further requires that no person may provide, 
in any written statement of fact, “material factual information that is incorrect or omit material 
information that is necessary to prevent any material factual statement that is made from being incorrect 
or misleading without a reasonable basis for believing that any such material factual statement is correct 
and not misleading.”
32
  Thus, even absent an intent to deceive, a false statement may constitute an 
actionable violation of section 1.17 of the Commission’s rules if provided without a reasonable basis for 
believing that the material factual information it contains is correct and not misleading.
33
25
 Character Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986).  The fundamental importance of truthfulness and candor 
on the part of applicants and licensees in their dealings with the Commission is well established.  See FCC v. 
WOKO, Inc., 329 U.S. 223 (1946); Lebanon Valley Radio, Inc., Decision, 35 FCC 2d 243 (Rev. Bd. 1972); Nick J. 
Chaconas, Decision, 28 FCC 2d 231 (Rev. Bd. 1971).
26
 See 47 CFR § 1.17(a)(1). 
27
 Fox River Broadcasting, Inc., Order, 93 FCC 2d 127, 129 (1983); Discussion Radio, Inc., Memorandum Opinion 
and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability, 19 FCC Rcd 7433, 7435 (2004).
28
 Fox River Broadcasting, Inc., 93 FCC 2d at 129; Discussion Radio, 19 FCC Rcd at 7435.
29
 Trinity Broadcasting of Florida, Inc., Initial Decision, 10 FCC Rcd 12020, 12063 (1995); Discussion Radio, 19 
FCC Rcd at 7435.
30
 David Ortiz Radio Corp. v. FCC, 941 F.2d 1253, 1260 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (quoting Leflore Broadcasting Co. v. 
FCC, 636 F.2d 454, 462 (D.C. Cir. 1980)); see also Discussion Radio, 19 FCC Rcd at 7435.
31
 See Joseph Bahr, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 32, 33 (Rev. Bd. 1994); Discussion Radio, 19 
FCC Rcd at 7435; Black Television Workshop of Los Angeles, Inc., Decision, 8 FCC Rcd 4192, 4198, n.41 (1993) 
(citing California Public Broadcasting Forum v. FCC, 752 F.2d 670, 679 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Scott & Davis 
Enterprises, Inc., Decision, 88 FCC 2d 1090, 1100 (Rev. Bd. 1982)).  Intent to deceive can also be inferred when the 
surrounding circumstances clearly show the existence of an intent to deceive.  Commercial Radio Service, Inc., 
Order to Show Cause, 21 FCC Rcd 9983, 9986 (2006) (citing American International Development, Inc., 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 86 FCC 2d 808, 816, n.39 (1981), aff’d sub nom. KXIV, Inc. v. FCC, 704 F.2d 
1294 (D.C. Cir. 1983)).
32
 See 47 CFR § 1.17(a)(2).
33
 Amendment of Section 1.17 of the Commission’s Rules Concerning Truthful Statements to the Commission, Report 
and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 4016, 4017, para. 4 (2003) (stating that the revision to Section 1.17 is intended to “prohibit 
incorrect statements or omissions that are the result of negligence, as well as an intent to deceive”), recon. denied, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 5790, further recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 
Federal Communications Commission DA 18-454 
3
12. In the instant case, Metro represented to the Commission on five occasions that no party 
directly or indirectly controlling Metro has ever been convicted of a felony by any state or federal court.  
As discussed above, the information before us shows that Mr. Mosquera, a party directly or indirectly 
controlling Metro, was convicted of a felony by a state court in California.  Yet, in all five applications, 
Metro answered “N” to Question 50.  We therefore designate for hearing appropriate issues to determine 
whether Metro misrepresented and/or lacked candor in its dealings with the Commission either with an 
intent to deceive and/or in willful and repeated violation of section 1.17 of the Commission’s rules.
13. Failure to Maintain Completeness and Accuracy of Pending Applications.  Under section 
1.65 of the Commission’s rules, an applicant is responsible for the continuing accuracy and completeness 
of the information furnished in a pending application or in Commission proceedings involving a pending 
application.
34
  Whenever the information furnished in the pending application is no longer substantially 
accurate and complete in all significant respects, the applicant must, within 30 days, amend its application 
so as to furnish the additional or correct information.
35
  For the purposes of section 1.65, an application is 
“pending” before the Commission from the time it is accepted for filing until a Commission grant (or 
denial) is no longer subject to reconsideration by the Commission or review by any court.
36
14. In the instant case, Metro’s captioned application remains pending.
37
  Thus, Metro has 
been under a continuing obligation to ensure the accuracy of this application and to amend it as 
appropriate.  Nevertheless, Metro has never informed the Commission that its pending application 
contained information it must have known to be false.  Even after the initiation of a hearing proceeding 
against Acumen based on allegations that Mr. Mosquera had been convicted of a felony that Acumen had 
failed to disclose to the Commission, and the eventual revocation of Acumen’s licenses, Metro did not 
amend its pending application.  Accordingly, we designate for hearing an appropriate issue to determine 
whether Metro willfully and/or repeatedly violated section 1.65 of the Commission’s rules.
(...continued from previous page)
FCC Rcd 1250 (2004).
34
 47 CFR § 1.65.
35
 Id.
36
 Id.
37
 See File No. 0006481203.
Federal Communications Commission DA 18-454 
4
III. ORDERING CLAUSES
15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 309(e), 312(a)(1), 312(a)(2), 
312(a)(4), and 312(c) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(e), 312(a)(1), 312(a)(2), 312(a)(4), 312(c), that Metro 
Two-Way, LLC SHALL SHOW CAUSE why the authorizations for which it is the licensee set forth in 
Attachment A should not be revoked, and that the above-captioned application filed by Metro Two-Way, 
LLC is DESIGNATED FOR HEARING in a consolidated proceeding before an FCC Administrative 
Law Judge, at a time and place to be specified in a subsequent Order, upon the following issues:
(a) To determine whether Hector Manuel Mosquera directly or indirectly controls Metro. 
(b) To determine whether Metro engaged in misrepresentation and/or lack of candor in 
its applications with the Commission. 
(c) To determine whether Metro failed to amend its pending application, in willful and/or 
repeated violation of section 1.65 of the Commission’s rules.
(d) To determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the foregoing issues, 
whether Metro is qualified to be and remain a Commission licensee.
(e) To determine, in light of the foregoing issues, whether the authorizations for which 
Metro is the licensee should be revoked.
(f) To determine, in light of the foregoing issues, whether the captioned application filed 
by or on behalf of Metro should be granted.
16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to the resolution of the foregoing issues, 
it shall be determined, pursuant to section 503(b)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1), whether an 
ORDER OF FORFEITURE should be issued against Metro in an amount not to exceed the statutory 
limit for the willful and/or repeated violation of each rule section above for which the statute of 
limitations in section 503(b)(6) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(6), has not lapsed.
17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 312(c) of the Act and sections 
1.91(c) and 1.221 of the rules, 47 U.S.C. § 312(c) and 47 CFR §§ 1.91(c), 1.221, to avail itself of the 
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence at a hearing in this proceeding, Metro, in person or by an 
attorney, SHALL FILE with the Commission, within 20 calendar days of the release of this Order, a 
written appearance stating that it will appear at the hearing and present evidence on the issues specified 
above.
18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.91 of the rules, 47 CFR § 1.91, 
if Metro fails to file a timely appearance, its right to a hearing shall be deemed to be waived.  In the event 
the right to a hearing is waived, the Chief Administrative Law Judge (or presiding officer if one has been 
designated) shall, at the earliest practicable date, issue an order reciting the events or circumstances 
constituting a waiver of hearing, terminating the hearing proceeding, and certifying the case to the 
Commission.  In addition, pursuant to section 1.221 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR § 1.221, if any 
applicant to the captioned application fails to file a timely written appearance, the captioned application 
shall be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Chief, Enforcement Bureau, shall be made a 
party to this proceeding without the need to file a written appearance.
Federal Communications Commission DA 18-454 
5
20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to section 312(d) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 
§ 312(d), and section 1.91(d) of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR § 1.91(d), the burden of proceeding with 
the introduction of evidence and the burden of proof shall be upon the Enforcement Bureau as to the 
issues at 15(a)-(e), above, and that, pursuant to section 309(e) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 309(e), and section 
1.254 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR § 1.254, the burden of proceeding with the introduction of 
evidence and the burden of proof shall be upon Metro as to the issue at 15(f), above.
21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mobile Relay Associates shall be made a party to 
this hearing in its capacity as a petitioner to the captioned application.
22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of each document filed in this proceeding 
subsequent to the date of adoption of this document SHALL BE SERVED on the counsel of record 
appearing on behalf of the Chief, Enforcement Bureau.  Parties may inquire as to the identity of such 
counsel by calling the Investigations & Hearings Division of the Enforcement Bureau at (202) 418-1420.  
Such service copy SHALL BE ADDRESSED to the named counsel of record, Investigations & Hearings 
Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12
th
 Street, S.W., Washington, 
DC  20554.
23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this document shall be sent via Certified 
Mail - Return Receipt Requested to the following:
Metro Two-Way, LLC
P.O. Box 2871
Fullerton, CA  92837 
Attn: Radio Manager
CARA Enterprises, Inc.
P.O. Box 400124
Las Vegas, NV  89140-0124
Attn: Doug Thompson
Dennis C. Brown
8124 Cook Court, Suite 201
Manassas, VA  20109-7406
Mobile Relay Associates
c/o David J. Kaufman
Rini O’Neil, PC
1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC  20036
Federal Communications Commission DA 18-454 
6
24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this document, or a summary thereof, shall 
be published in the Federal Register.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Scot Stone
Deputy Chief, Mobility Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Federal Communications Commission DA 18-454
 
ATTACHMENT A
The following authorizations of which Metro Two-Way, LLC is the licensee are the subject of this license 
revocation hearing:
1. WQUF826
2. WQUQ815
3. WQUQ816
4. WQUR829
Federal Communications Commission DA 18-454 
1
ATTACHMENT B
The following pending application is designated for hearing in this proceeding:
1. Metro Two-Way, LLC, Application for New Industrial/Business Pool License, File No. 
0006481203
Federal Communications Commission DA 18-454 
1
ATTACHMENT C
1. Metro Two-Way, LLC, Application for New License, File No. 0006329910 
(http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/applMain.jsp?applID=8373812)
2. Metro Two-Way, LLC, Application for New License, File No. 0006455820 
http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/applMain.jsp?applID=8548942)
3. Metro Two-Way, LLC, Application for New License, File No. 0006455821 
(http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/applMain.jsp?applID=8548943)
4. Metro Two-Way, LLC, Application for New License, File No. 0006461511 
(http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/applMain.jsp?applID=8557992)