United States v. Matthew Howard, 968 F.3d 717

Howard was indicted on seven counts related to child pornography; he pleaded guilty to five (receipt, distribution, possession) and proceeded to trial on two §2251(a) production counts.
The contested videos show Howard masturbating while his nine‑year‑old niece lay fully clothed and asleep; the footage depicts Howard’s solo sexually explicit conduct, not the child engaging in such conduct.
The government’s theory: Howard "used" the child as an object of sexual interest to produce visual depictions of his own masturbation and lascivious exhibition of his genitals, so §2251(a) was violated.
The district court gave instructions allowing conviction if the jury found Howard "knowingly used [the niece] to engage in sexually explicit conduct," identifying "masturbation" and "lascivious exhibition" as the conduct at issue; the defense argued the statute requires causing the minor to engage in the conduct.
The jury convicted on both §2251(a) counts; Howard was sentenced to concurrent 25‑year terms on each count and appealed only those convictions.
The Seventh Circuit held the government’s reading stretched the statute beyond its natural context, applied the noscitur a sociis canon and the statutory scheme, vacated the §2251(a) convictions, and remanded to dismiss those counts and resentence; the government waived retrial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 18 U.S.C. §2251(a) requires the defendant to take action to cause a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct	Howard: yes — the verbs (employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, coerces) mean the offender must cause the minor to engage in such conduct	Government: no — "uses" is broad and covers using a minor as the object/reason for the defendant's solo sexually explicit conduct	Held: The court adopted Howard's reading; "uses" is read in context (noscitur a sociis) with the other verbs and requires proof the defendant caused the minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct; convictions vacated
Remedy if Howard's interpretation accepted	Howard: dismiss the §2251(a) counts and resentence on remaining convictions	Government: could seek retrial (but declined at oral argument)	Held: Counts vacated and remanded for dismissal and resentencing; government waived retrial

Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 528 (noscitur a sociis canon applied)
Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561 (interpretive canon: words read in context)
United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (broad statutory language narrowed by context)
Lagos v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1684 (statutory‑context canon cited)
McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (contextual interpretation of statutory terms)
United States v. Maxwell, 446 F.3d 1210 (describing Congress’s comprehensive child‑pornography scheme)
United States v. Lohse, 797 F.3d 515 (Eighth Circuit decision discussed as unhelpful here)
United States v. Laursen, 847 F.3d 1026 (example of cases where images plainly depicted minors engaged in sexual conduct)
United States v. Wright, 774 F.3d 1085 (same)