alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Somsak Chivavibul,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period
covered by this report on Form 10-K of SLM Student Loan Trust 2012-3 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my
knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing
and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement and administration agreement, as applicable, in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee.

[Signature Page Follows]



---

Date: March 30, 2016



|                     
|---------------------
|/s/ SOMSAK CHIVAVIBUL
|Somsak Chivavibul    

President and Chief Financial Officer

(Senior Securitization Officer)

Navient Funding, LLC
# C_2006224EN.01002201.xml

| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 28 June 2006 — Hans-Dieter and Hedwig Jundt v Finanzamt Offenburg

(Case C-281/06)

(2006/C 224/41)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hans-Dieter and Hedwig Jundt

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Offenburg

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now Article 49 EC) to be interpreted as including within its scope also spare-time teaching activity for or on behalf of a public law legal person (a university) where only an expense allowance is paid for that activity, as being an activity in a quasi-honorary capacity? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now Article 49 EC) to be interpreted as including within its scope also spare-time teaching activity for or on behalf of a public law legal person (a university) where only an expense allowance is paid for that activity, as being an activity in a quasi-honorary capacity?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is the restriction on freedom to provide services whereby allowances are taxed favourably only if they are paid by national public law legal persons (here, Paragraph 3(26) of the Einkommensteuergesetz (Income Tax Law)) justified by the fact that the State tax concession applies only where the activity is for the benefit of a national public law legal person? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is the restriction on freedom to provide services whereby allowances are taxed favourably only if they are paid by national public law legal persons (here, Paragraph 3(26) of the Einkommensteuergesetz (Income Tax Law)) justified by the fact that the State tax concession applies only where the activity is for the benefit of a national public law legal person?

| 3. | If the second question is answered in the negative, is Article 126 of the EC Treaty (now Article 149 EC) to be interpreted as meaning that a provision of tax law designed to help supplement the organisation of the education system (such as Paragraph 3(26) of the Einkommensteuergesetz, here) is lawful in the light of the fact that the Member States continue to have responsibility in that regard? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the second question is answered in the negative, is Article 126 of the EC Treaty (now Article 149 EC) to be interpreted as meaning that a provision of tax law designed to help supplement the organisation of the education system (such as Paragraph 3(26) of the Einkommensteuergesetz, here) is lawful in the light of the fact that the Member States continue to have responsibility in that regard?

---
#### Charles F. McKenna, Appellant, v. B. Sherwood Dunn and Others, Respondents.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 35 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 35

     Condemning the racism and bigotry espoused by the Council of 
                         Conservative Citizens.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 1999

 Mr. Wexler (for himself and for Mr. Clyburn) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Condemning the racism and bigotry espoused by the Council of 
                         Conservative Citizens.

Whereas the population of the United States contains a spectrum of many diverse 
        and rich cultures, races, and religious beliefs that contribute to the 
        vitality and stability of the Nation;
Whereas the House of Representatives strongly opposes racism, bigotry, and all 
        forms of ethnic and religious intolerance;
Whereas the Council of Conservative Citizens is an outgrowth of the 
        segregationalist ``White Citizens Council'', commonly known as the 
        White-Collar Klan, which helped to enforce segregation in the 1950s and 
        1960s;
Whereas the Council of Conservative Citizens promotes racism, divisiveness, and 
        intolerance through its newsletter, World Wide Web site, and public 
        discourse;
Whereas the Council of Conservative Citizens promulgates dogma that supports 
        white supremacy and anti-Semitism and maliciously denigrates great 
        American leaders including Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Martin Luther King, 
        Jr.; and
Whereas the Council of Conservative Citizens provides access to, and 
        opportunities for the promotion of, extremist neo-Nazi ideology and 
        propaganda that incite hate crimes and violence: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) condemns the racism and bigotry espoused by the Council 
        of Conservative Citizens;
            (2) condemns all manifestations and expressions of racism, 
        bigotry, and religious intolerance wherever they occur; and
            (3) urges all Members of the House of Representatives not 
        to support or endorse the Council of Conservative Citizens and 
        its views.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 48.201 To whom does this subpart apply?

This subpart applies to employees that fundraise for a Bureau-operated school. This subpart does not apply to students who fundraise.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 645 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      October 24, 2000.
    Resolved, That the bill of the Senate (S. 1109) entitled the ``Bear 
Protection Act of 2000'', in the opinion of this House, contravenes the first 
clause of the seventh section of the first article of the Constitution of the 
United States and is an infringement of the privileges of this House and that 
such bill be respectfully returned to the Senate with a message communicating 
this resolution.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
§ 103.35 What must the lender do if the borrower defaults on the loan? ( a ) The lender must send written notice of the default to the borrower, and otherwise meet the standard of care established for the lender in this part. The lender's notice to the borrower should be sent as soon as possible after the default, but in any event before the lender's notice to BIA under paragraph (b) of this section. For purposes of the Program, “default” will mean a default as defined in this part.
( b ) The lender also must send written notice of the default to BIA by certified mail (return receipt requested), or by a nationally-recognized overnight delivery service (signature of recipient required) within 60 calendar days of the default, unless the default is fully cured before that deadline. This notice is required even if the lender grants the borrower a forbearance under § 103.36(a). One purpose of the notice is to give BIA the opportunity to intervene and seek assistance for the borrower, even though BIA has no duty, either to the lender or the borrower, to do so. Another purpose of the notice is to permit BIA to plan for a possible loss claim from the lender, under § 103.36(d). The lender's notice must clearly indicate: ( 1 ) The identity of the borrower;
( 2 ) The applicable Program guaranty certificate or insurance agreement number;
( 3 ) The date and nature of all bases for default;
( 4 ) If a monetary default, the amount of past due principal and interest, the date through which interest has been calculated, and the amount of any late fees, precautionary advances, or other amounts the lender claims;
( 5 ) The nature and outcome of any correspondence or other contacts with the borrower concerning the default; and
( 6 ) The precise nature of any action the borrower could take to cure the default.
§ 309.25 How can an individual be certified as an Indian artisan? ( a ) In order for an individual to be certified by an Indian tribe as a non-member Indian artisan for purposes of this part— ( 1 ) The individual must be of Indian lineage of one or more members of such Indian tribe; and
( 2 ) The certification must be documented in writing by the governing body of an Indian tribe or by a certifying body delegated this function by the governing body of the Indian tribe.
( b ) As provided in section 107 of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, Public Law 101-644, a tribe may not impose a fee for certifying an Indian artisan.
[61 FR 54555, Oct. 21, 1996. Redesignated at 68 FR 35170, June 12, 2003]
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

76-79 

June 11, 1976 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4021(a)(1) Plans Covered. Tax Qualification in Practice 

OPINION: 

 This is in reference to the reportable event which you have filed on behalf of * * *. * * * (the Plan). The reportable

* * * event involves a reduction in the number of active participants covered by the Plan. 

As you are aware, the Plan is not in receipt of a determination letter from the Internal Revenue Service (the IRS)

regarding its qualification under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (the Code). The Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation (the PBGC) is presently reviewing the Plan's operation to determine if it in fact satisfies the tax-qualification

requirements of the Code required for coverage under Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

(the Act). 

We would appreciate your forwarding to us the following information as soon as possible. Please provide the data

specified below for (1) the plan year in progress on the date of enactment of the Act, September 2, 1974, (2) the plan

year immediately preceding such plan year, and (3) each of the plan years following the plan year in progress on the date

of enactment through the date of the reportable event. 

(a) Total number of * * * employees; [*2] 

(b) Total number of participants in the Plan; 

(c) Total number of employees excluded from Plan participation for failure to satisfy the plan eligibility requirements

and the reasons for their exclusion; 

 (d) Total nondeferred compensation paid or accrued for all the employees. 

Also provide the information requested in the following four items: 

(a) The date the Plan was communicated to the employees; How communicated? 

(b) Does the employer contribute to any other qualified plan? If yes, furnish the following information: 

(i) Name of Plan * * * 

(ii) Type of Plan * * * 

(iii) Rate of employer contribution, if fixed 

(iv) Monthly benefit, if a pension plan 

(v) Vested benefit upon termination of employment prior to retirement; 

(c) Is any question relating to the qualification of the plan currently pending before the IRS or any court? 

(d) Census data for the 25 highest paid participating employees for the first year of the Plan; please comply by

completing the attached schedule (Schedule 'A'). 

If you have any questions regarding this request, please call Mr. * * * (of this office at (202) 254-4873. Our

processing of the reportable event necessarily must await the determination [*3] of the tax-qualification status of the

Plan, as such is a requisite of coverage under Title IV of the Act (See Act, § 4021). 

John H. Falsey 

Supervisory Attorney 

Office of the General Counsel
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-53 

December 4, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4021(a) Plans Covered. Requirements of Coverage 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your November 26, 1974, letter, as supplemented by your telephone conversation with * *

* of this Corporation on November 20, 1975, regarding the coverage status of the * * * (the "Plan") under Title IV of

the Employee Retirement Income Security Ach of 1974 (the "Act"). 

We understand that the Plan has not been determined by the Internal Revenue Service to be a qualified plan as

described below. We understand, further, that the trust under the Plan is governed by the laws of and maintained in the

Virgin Islands. 

Section 4021(a) of the Act provides for mandatory plan termination insurance coverage for trusteed defined benefit

pension plans which are, or have been determined by the Internal Revenue Service to be, gualified plans, i.e., those

meeting the requirements of section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (the "Code"). One of these

requirements is that the trust under the plan must be "created or organized" in the United States and, further, pursuant

to Treasury Department regulations, maintained at all times as a domestic trust in the United States. For this purpose

section 7701(a) (9) of [*2] the Code defines "United States" to include "only the States and the District of Columbia."

The trust under the Plan clearly does not meet the above requirement, so that the Plan cannot be a qualified plan

under the Code. Accordingly, the Plan is excluded from the termination insurance provisions of Title IV of the Act. 

We are, therefore, requesting our Office of Finance & Administration to forward to you a check for $13.00 to

reimburse you for your premium payments. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
§ 247.16 What fire is permitted? ( a ) You may have a fire in designated fire places, and other areas designated for fires.
( b ) You may have a fire inside a drying shed in a manner that does not jeopardize the structure.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

81-6 

April 1, 1981 

REFERENCE: 

4048 Date of Termination 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter to * * * of this Office. You asked what methods were available to the United

Steelworkers of America (the "Union" ) to challenge the agreement between the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

(the "PBGC") and * * * Company setting the termination date of the * * * Company Pension Plan for Hourly Rated

Employees (the "Plan"). The PBGC Regulation on Administrative Review of Agency Decisions, 29 C.F.R. § 2618, does

not provide for review of an agreement between the PBGC and a plan administrator regarding a plan termination date.

The PBGC will review informally, upon request, determinations that are not subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2618, when the

PBGC determines that such a review is appropriate. 

The Plan was terminated as of October 24, 1979, pursuant to an agreement between the PBGC and the * * *

Company (the "Company"). The decision to use October 24, 1979, as the date of plan termination was based upon the

terms of the Plan and case law. The first sentence of Article 10.3 of the Plan provides for termination of the Plan by the

Company at any time, subject to the consent [*2] of the Union. The second sentence of Article 10.3 states that in the

event of "dissolution, merger, consolidation or reorganization of the Company," the Plan will terminate. Thus, according

to the terms of the Plan, there are two ways it could terminate: 1) at the option of the Company with Union consent; or

2) automatically in the case of dissolution, merger, consolidation or reorganization. When the assets of the Company

were assigned for the benefit of creditors on October 24, 1979, this constituted a dissolution and the Plan terminated by

its own terms on that date. 

 This determination is consistent with PBGC v. Heppenstall Company, No. 79-2224 (3d Cir. 1980), in which the

Court said that a plan termination date is acceptable if 1) plan participants had no justifiable expectation of additional

accrual of benefits under the plan after the proposed termination date; and 2) plan participants had reasonable notice that

the plan was terminating. 

In this case, the plan participants had no justifiable exception of benefit accrual and had constructive notice of plan

termination perhaps as early as August 31, 1979, when the company ceased operations, but certainly no later than [*3]

October 24, 1979, the date the assets of the Company were assigned for the benefit of creditors. Thus, the October 24,

1979, termination date satisfies the criteria set out in the Heppenstall decision. 

I hope this answers your inquiry. If we can be of further assistance please let us know. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
### [§2540. Renumbered §4971]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2540, acts Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 141, §2511; renumbered §2521, Nov. 5, 1990, Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title VIII, §823(a)(2), 104 Stat. 1600; renumbered §2540, Dec. 5, 1991, Pub. L. 102–190, div. A, title VIII, §821(e)(3), 105 Stat. 1432, related to availability or issuance to reserve components of supplies, services, and facilities of armed forces, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §§1664(c)(2), 1691, Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 3012, 3026, effective Dec. 1, 1994. See section 18502 of this title.

Another prior section 2540 was renumbered section 4884 of this title.
# C_2006310EN.01001901.xml

| 16.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/19

---

Action brought on 11 October 2006 — TORRES v OHIM — Bodegas Cándido (TORRE DE FRIAS)

(Case T-285/06)

(2006/C 310/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Miguel Torres S.A. (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, M. A. Baz de San Ceferino and A. Castán Pérez-Gόmez, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bodegas Cándido S.A.

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 July 2006 in Case R 1069/2000-2 and order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 July 2006 in Case R 1069/2000-2 and order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Bodegas Cándido S.A.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark TORRE DE FRIAS for goods in Class 33 — Application No 305 151.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word marks TORRES, international word mark TORRES, and international word mark LAS TORRES for goods in Class 33.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) since the word TORRE is the dominant component in the overall impression produced by the mark applied for there are aural and visual similarities between the conflicting marks, and there is a likelihood of confusion between them which makes it impossible for them to coexist on the market.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 10936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4403]

[[Page 10936]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7350]

Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Bust of a Ptolemaic Queen''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the object to be 
included in the exhibition ``Bust of a Ptolemaic Queen,'' imported from 
abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, is of 
cultural significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan 
agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at the Metropolitan 
Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on or about March 15, 2011, 
until on or about March 15, 2014, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
description of the exhibit object, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of 
State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: February 22, 2011.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2011-4403 Filed 2-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```