Source: http://dnadefense.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=100&Itemid=217
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 06:44:33+00:00

Document:
Title 8, United States Code, Section 1326(a), makes it a crime for an alien to enter [to be found within] the United States without consent of the Attorney General to apply for readmission after being deported.
Fourth: That the defendant had not received the consent of the Attorney General of the United States to apply for readmission to the United States since the time of the defendant's previous deportation.
As of April 1, 1997, arrest is no longer an element of the crime. P.L. 104-208, § 308(d)(4)(J)(i), (ii); United States v. Ramirez-Gamez, 171 F.3d 236 (5th Cir.1999); per curiam United States v. Cabrera-Teran, 168 F.3d 141 (5th Cir.1999). The remaining elements of proof are described in United States v. Benitez-Villafuerte, 186 F.3d 651 (5th Cir.1999), and United States v. Flores-Peraza, 58 F.3d 164, 166 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 782 (1996).
Specific intent is not an element of this crime; it is a general intent crime. United States v. Berrios-Centeno, 250 F.3d 294, 297–98 (5th Cir.2001); United States v. Guzman-Ocampo, 236 F.3d 233 (5th Cir.2000). The government must show that the defendant had the general intent to reenter, i.e., he is here voluntarily. Id.; United States v. Ortegon-Uvalde, 179 F.3d 956 (5th Cir.1999); United States v. Trevino-Martinez, 86 F.3d 65 (5th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 1109. See United States v. Tovias-Marroquin, 218 F.3d 455 (5th Cir.2000).
An alien within the United States is not “found in” the United States if he approaches a recognized port of entry and produces his identity seeking admission. United States v. Angeles-Mascote, 206 F.3d 529 (5th Cir.2000).
The Supreme Court has held in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 1219 (1998), that proof of the defendant's commission of an aggravated felony prior to deportation is not an element of the offense but is a punishment provision in addressing recidivism. The decision is further discussed but not overruled by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (2000). Until Almendarez-Torres is overruled, the Fifth Circuit has held that it has the duty to follow it as United States Supreme Court precedent. United States v. Nava-Perez, 242 F.3d 277 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). The Committee has not recommended an additional element of proof that the felony committed was an aggravated felony.

References: § 308
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.