The court found that given that the father was “certainly a person of suitable age and discretion to be trusted to deliver the summons to his daughter,” and that Luanne clearly learned about the summons such that she timely sought an extension of the initial appearance, “the summons bears only the most technical of deficiencies that did not affect Luanne’s substantial rights and was served in compliance with the spirit, if not the letter, of Rule 4.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Crim. 52(a) and Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (1988)). This Court should apply Borzeka and follow Sollenberger to find that despite any failure to meet the technical requirements of Rule 4(c)(3)(C)