takings” from “exchanges of property where the wrongdoer merely misrepresents the value of the consideration advanced.” Smith, 951 F.2d at 1167. In the latter instance, we found that “the loss or taking consists only of the difference in value between what was given and what was obtained.” Id. In Whitehead, we held that the sentencing court erred in including the entire value of a house in its loss calculations when the defendant had used false documents to obtain an option to purchase the house, but had not actually exercised the option. Whitehead, 91 ubstantive Criminal Law § 8.5(b), at 359 (1986) (“One who takes another’s property intending at the time he takes it to use it temporarily and then return it unconditionally ... lacks the intent to steal required for larceny”). In .1991) (<HOLDING>). In this ease, Mr. Moore pleaded guilty to
holding that parked police vehicle could not constitute other traffic holding automobile exeeption did not apply to warrantless search of vehicle where vehicle was not readily mobile because the vehicle was legally parked in parking lot occupants of vehicle were seated on a bench in the playground near the parking lot police officers surrounded the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was handcuffed for safety purposes holding that where a defendant abandoned a vehicle in a subdivision near where the victims body was found there was sufficient evidence of intent to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle holding that no privacy interest was invaded when the officers saw the defendants activities while he was parked in a tavern parking lot and seated in a vehicle with the console light on holding that the jury may find intent to permanently deprive the owner where the defendant parked and abandoned a vehicle in a vacant lot with the windows down