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

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.