1. Whether the district court's instructions to the jury
regarding the statutory terms "sexually explicit
conduct" and "lascivious exhibition" were consistent
with 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2) and this Court's precedent.

2. Whether a defendant can be convicted of knowingly
making or publishing "a notice or advertisement"
seeking participation in an act of sexually explicit
conduct by or with a minor for the purpose of
producing a visual depiction of such conduct in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(d)(1) based upon the
exchange of private, direct person-to-person text
messages with a single individual.

3. Whether a defendant can be convicted of knowingly
persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing a minor
to engage in prostitution or any "sexual activity" for
which any person can be charged with a criminal
offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) in the
absence of any physical contact and where the
defendant and minor were never even in each other's
physical presence.

4. Whether Rule 412 bars, and/or the Fifth and Sixth
Amendments require, the admission of res gestae
evidence regarding the actions and statements of
an alleged victim and her family, contemporaneous
with her communications with the defendant, to the
effect of seeking to profit from or take advantage of
the defendant or other men where the meaning of
and intent behind the communications between the
defendant and victim is at issue.

Whether the district court's jury instructions on 'sexually explicit conduct' and 'lascivious exhibition' were consistent with statutory interpretation and Supreme Court precedent