defendant’s argument to the contrary. The government offered evidence that the larger images were taken with a camera that had the same characteristics as the camera possessed by the defendant and edited using the same software found on the computers seized from the defendant at the border. The defendant contends that the act of cropping cannot as a matter of law render an image lascivious when the larger image from which it was cropped was un disputably not lascivious. However, several courts, including the Sixth Circuit in United States v. Brown, have suggested that a reasonable jury may consider evidence of cropping or a focus on a specific area to support a finding of lasciviousness. See Brown, 579 F.3d at 681; see also United States v. Johnson, 639 F.3d 433, 440-41 (8th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Freeman, 808 F.2d 1290, 1292
holding that a reasonable jury could find the video clips were intended to be lascivious because the video camera involved in the production of the images was angled and zoomed such that the frame encompassed their nude bodies from their shoulders to below their knees holding that because the challenged iep was adequate the defendant school board could not be ordered to reimburse the parents for expenses incurred as a result of their decision to remove their child from the  program holding in a similar situation that statements from unidentified ex ecutives were admissible because evidence established that though their precise identity was unknown they were all westinghouse executives who had authority to make personnel decisions and thus were actfing within the scope of their employment in stating their views on the state of their workforce holding that it was proper for court to rely on affidavits of defendants representatives in negotiations because their personal knowledge and competence to testify are reasonably inferred from their positions and the nature of their participation in the matters to which they swore holding that a rational trier of fact could reasonably find that the substantial percentage reductions 35  89 in the broad range of jobs available to the plaintiffs coupled with their own testimony about the effects of their disabilities on their work as production associates substantially limited them in the major life activity of working