this interpretation, insisting that its construction requires the court to pick a penalty between $25,000 and $50,000. Gov’t Reply Br. 6 n. 1; see Oral Arg. Recording 54:03-54:19. We have difficulty seeing how the government’s construction yields that result, at least without considerable verbal gymnastics. Finally, whatever the persuasiveness of the government’s “disgorgement” rationale for penalizing the payee in the full amount of the payment, it does not apply to the penalty imposed on the payor. The payor has no “ill-gotten gains” to disgorge; to the contrary, it is already out the amount it paid. Yet 86, 1992 WL 46682, at * 1 (9th Cir. Mar.12, 1992) (noting “that good faith [i]s not a defense to a general intent crime”); United States v. Champegnie, 925 F.2d 54, 55 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); see also Liparota, 471 U.S. at 425 n. 9, 105
holding that the test for good faith is the actual belief of the party and not the reasonableness of that belief holding that because the government need not show that a defendant specifically intended to disobey the law in order to prove a violation of 8 usc  1326  which makes it a felony for a previously deported alien to reenter the united states without the express permission of the attorney general  the defendants good faith or mistaken belief  that she could reenter lawfully is not a defense holding that the phrase resident alien means an alien lawfully residing in the united states holding that alien on student visa could not lawfully possess intent to be domiciled in the united states recognizing that the plain language of  1326a establishes that a previously deported alien who illegally enters and remains in the united states can violate the statute at three different points in time namely when the alien 1 enters 2 attempts to enter or 3 is at any time found in the united states