Circuit has found that: “An indictment is sufficient if it contains the elements of the offense charged, fairly informs the defendant what charge he must be prepared to meet, and enables the accused to plead acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.” United States v. Cauble, 706 F.2d 1322, 1333 (5th Cir.1983). Generally, the sufficiency of an indictment is determined from its face. See United States v. Risk, 843 F.2d 1059, 1061 (7th Cir.1988) (citing United States v. Sampson, 371 U.S. 75, 78-79, 83 S.Ct. 173, 9 L.Ed.2d 136 (1962)). A court, however, may consider whether the allegations contained in the indictment are sufficient to state a claim under the relevant criminal statute. Id. See also United States v. Brown, 925 F.2d 1301, 1305 (10th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, Defendant is charged
holding that the district court was entitled to deference in its application of  4b12 of the sentencing guidelines in a case where the underlying facts were undisputed holding that the district court properly dismissed an indictment where the parties argued the applicability of a statute based on a set of undisputed facts holding that it is permissible and may be desirable where the facts are essentially undisputed for the district court to examine the factual predicate for an indictment to determine whether the elements of the criminal charge can be shown sufficiently for a submissible case holding that whether proximate cause exists is to be decided in a common sense fashion in the light of the attending facts and circumstances and unless the facts are undisputed and admit of but one inference the question is for the jury recognizing the issue may be decided as a question of law if the facts are undisputed and support only one inference