cause” to believe Yates committed the New Mexico State kidnapping and crimi nal sexual penetration crimes while free on recognizance in the instant case. Although the district court erred in finding that a U.S. magistrate had found probable cause, the presentence report adopted by the district court stated that Yates had been indicted by a New Mexico state grand jury on two counts of criminal sexual penetration and kidnapping, offenses which occurred while Yates was on bond for the sexual assault on the five-year-old girl. In light of the New Mexico state indictment, we conclude that the error was harmless. See Id..; United States v. Byrd, 898 F.2d 450, 453 (5th Cir.1990) (indictment provides probable cause); see also United States v. Spedalieri, 910 F.2d 707, 712 (10th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, Application Note 1(b) (in
holding that the trial courts classification of property will not be disturbed as long as there is competent evidence to support that determination holding that the district courts denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility is a factual question and should be accorded great deference and should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous holding that the icaos decision should not be disturbed if it is supported by substantial evidence holding that a sentencing determination will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the district court holding that trial courts determination of whether defendant accepted responsibility should not be disturbed unless it is without foundation