CEU's sole business activity was the collection of dishonored checks received by area merchants. When a check was dishonored, a merchant would forward the check to CEU, who would then send out a series of notices to the check writer, usually using a letterhead of the Sheriff 's Department in that area. However, only after three notices are sent does CEU actually notify the Sheriff 's Department about the bad check. Sherri Gradisher wrote a bad check, and CEU sent three notices to Gradisher for the $81.30 bounced check. The notices were all on the letterhead of the Muskegon county sheriff. (The sheriff previously agreed to allow CEU to use its letterhead for debt collection purposes.) The notices contained the telephone number and address that Gradisher could use to contact CEU to pay or dispute the debt, but they did not state the name of the company anywhere. The letters also stated, "Failure to Make Payment Can Result in a War rant for Your Arrest." Gradisher sued CEU, contending that it violated the Fair Debt Col- lection Practices Act by using the letterhead of the Sheriff 's Department. She alleged that the letterhead gave the false and misleading impression that the notices were from the sheriff and that the letters did not disclose the true name of the debt collector. Did the letters CEU sent violate FDCPA? Why or why not?