Sales, Inc., 988 F.2d 476, 488 (3d Cir. 1993). The court must then "weigh and determine (the) disputed issues of facts on a Rule 12(b)(5) motion." Cranford v. United States, 359 F.Supp.2d 981, 984 (E.D. Cal. 2005). An evidentiary hearing is the proper vehicle for resolving this particular factual disput

1026 M1 1 S - S 8/03/05 incoming 10:68 AM 1 S - $ 8/03/05 Caldwell, NJ 11:13AM 1 $ - S 8/03/05 Incoming 1128AM 2 S - $ 8/03/05 Cranford, NJ 12:12 PM 4 8/03/06 Cranford, NJ 12:18 PM 6 $ - 8/03/05 Cranford, NJ 12:42 PM 3 - 8/03/05 Incoming 12:47 PM (A) 4 - $ 8/03.05 In

:58 AM 1 S - $ 8/03/05 Caldwell, NJ 11:13 AM 1 S - S 8/03/05 Incoming 11:38 AM 2 - S 8/03/05 Cranford. NJ 12:12 PM 4 - S 8/03/06 Cranford, NJ 12:16 PM 8 S - 8/03/06 Cranford, NJ 12:42 PM 3 $ - $ 8/03/05 Incoming 12:47 PM 4 - $ 8/03/05 Incoming 12:60 PM 3 - S $ 8/03

le oppor- tunity to confront the allegations and provide an in- nocent explanation. Such an opportunity is all that is required. In United States v. Cranford, 20 F.3d at 936, for example, a defendant told the Government one version of a fraud, implicating a co-defendant, and told others that he was sole