With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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,

A: holding that a childs nudity is not a prerequisite for a lascivious exhibition
B: holding that a coa is a jurisdictional prerequisite
C: holding that the ninetyday filing requirement is not a jurisdictional prerequisite and is subject to equitable tolling
D: recognizing that injury is a prerequisite to liability
A.