the Attorney General has expressly consented to such alien’s reapplying for admission.... [Such person] shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.” 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Eight Courts of Appeals have addressed whether this Section requires any mens rea element, of which the Seventh Circuit is alone in finding that § 1326 includes an implied mental state requirement. See United States v. Barrera-Paniangua, No. 98-CR-648, 2000 WL 246241, at • 1 & n. 1 (N.D.Ill. Feb.24, 2000) (noting that the Seventh Circuit is the only circuit of the eight who have addressed the issue of a mental state requirement to have found such a requirement exists, and collecting cases of other circuits); see also United States v. Anton, 683 F.2d 1011, 1017 (7th Cir.1982) (“Anton I”) (<HOLDING>). In Anton I, the defendant introduced facts
holding that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact holding the connection is an element holding that a false representation of a material matter of fact is a necessary element of a rescission claim holding that there is some mental state requirement for the third material element of  1326 holding that the lawfulness of a prior deportation is not a required element of a  1326 offense