Where Supreme Court precedent has been usurped by a United States District Court decision regarding the lasciviousness standard applied in cases of (attempted) sexual exploitation of a minor, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a), 2251(e), and 2256(2)(A), and the defendant's counsel failed to research and bring that precedent to the courts' attention, leading to a conviction, has counsel been deficient in his representation of the defendant?

Where the defendant engaged in voyeuristic behavior, recording a minor changing her clothes and going into and out of a shower, resulting in a charge and conviction of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor and receiving a sentence of 210 months, a significantly higher sentence than he would have received for voyeurism, has his Eighth Amendment right been violated?

Is application of the Dost factors appropriate in a determination of the lasciviousness standard related to charges of (attempted) sexual exploitation of a minor, or does the Supreme Court precedent requiring depictions of sexual conduct more properly meet the standard?

Whether the application of the Dost factors is appropriate in determining the lasciviousness standard for attempted sexual exploitation of a minor under Supreme Court precedent