When reviewing a district court's conclusion that an image depicts a 'lascivious exhibition' under 18 U.S.C. 2256(2)(A), must the appellate court review that conclusion de novo or for clear error?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case implicates two longstanding circuit splits involving the interpretation and application of the federal child pornography statute’s definition of “a minor engaging sexually explicit conduct,” 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B)— and, in particular, its use of the phrase “lascivious exhibition of the *** genitals[] or pubic area.” 18 U.S.C. 2256(2)(A). The Fourth Circuit upheld the district court’s determination that the video possessed by Petitioner showed a “lascivious exhibition” of a minor’s pubic area while she showered, and thus that the video depicted “a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” The court of appeals reviewed the district court’s conclusion for clear error and did not independently review the video at issue. And the court of appeals upheld the district court’s conclusion even though the video depicted no sexual acts, sexual posing, or sexual statements by either Petitioner or the minor; in so doing, the court of appeals relied primarily on Petitioner’s motive for and means of recording Doe. The questions presented are: 1. When reviewing a district court’s conclusion that an image depicts a “lascivious exhibition” under 18 U.S.C. 2256(2)(A), must the appellate court review that conclusion de novo or for clear error? 2. When determining whether an image depicts “a lascivious exhibition” under 18 U.S.C. 2256(2)(A), may a court consider the subjective intent or motive of either the defendant or the person who created the video, or must the court focus on the objective content of the exhibition itself? (I)