considered by the grand jury. See id. The only time an indictment must descend to particulars is when the definition of an offense includes generic terms. See United States v. Pirro, 212 F.3d 86, 93 (2d Cir.2000). Indictments do not have to set forth evidence or details of how a crime was committed. See, e.g., United States v. Carrier, 672 F.2d 300, 303-04 (2d Cir. 1982). The validity of an indictment is tested by its allegations, not by whether the government can prove its case. See Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363, 76 S.Ct. 406, 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956). Thus, a technically sufficient indictment “is not subject to dismissal on the basis of factual questions, the resolution of which must await trial.” See, e.g., United States v. Alfonso, 143 F.3d 772, 776-77 (2d Cir. 1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Paccione, 738 F.Supp. 691,
holding that appellate courts determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction based on a review of all of the evidence admitted at trial holding that the trial court erred by dismissing the plaintiffs defamation claim holding that the district court erred in summarily dismissing a  1983 complaint that should have been brought as a habeas petition holding that district court erred in dismissing the indictment based on sufficiency of evidence holding that court erred in dismissing minors claims with prejudice absent a hearing