clothed, or nude.” 636 F.Supp. at 832. The fact that this is but one of many factors suggests that the degree to which a child is clothed is not dispositive of whether a photograph depicting that child constitutes a “lascivious exhibition.” Finally, even photographs of children acting innocently — e.g., children clothed and sleeping — can become “lascivious” based on the conduct of the person producing the photographs. See Johnson, 639 F.3d at 440 (“[E]ven images of children acting innocently can be considered lascivious if they are intended to be sexual.”); Horn, 187 F.3d at 790 (“The ‘lascivious exhibition’ is not the work of the child, whose innocence is not in question, but of the producer or editor of the video.”); cf. United States v. Knox, 32 F.3d 733, 754 (3d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Hill, 322 F.Supp.2d 1081,
holding that the ninetyday filing requirement is not a jurisdictional prerequisite and is subject to equitable tolling holding that a childs nudity is not a prerequisite for a lascivious exhibition holding that a coa is a jurisdictional prerequisite recognizing that injury is a prerequisite to liability holding that article iii standing is not a prerequisite to intervention