alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.3



             REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



The Board of Directors
National Education Loan Network, Inc.:


We have examined the accompanying management assertion that National Education
Loan Network, Inc. (the Company) complied with the applicable servicing criteria
set forth in Item 1122 of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB
for publicly-issued student loan-backed securities issued on or after January 1,
2006, for which the Company provides services as a master servicer and
administrator (the Platform), except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii),
1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(iv),
1122(d)(4)(v), 1122(d)(4)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(viii),
1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii),
1122(d)(4)(xiii), and 1122(d)(4)(xiv), for which the Company has determined are
not applicable to the activities the Company performs with respect to the
Platform, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006. Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of
less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that
comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities
related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those
selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with
the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected
transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period
covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether
errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may
have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company
during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any
other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the
Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006
is fairly stated, in all material respects.



/s/ KPMG LLP

Lincoln, Nebraska
April 2, 2007
#### In the Matter of Latanya Morant, Appellant, v Lonnel Rogers et al., Respondents.

[986 NYS2d 346]

In related proceedings, in effect, pursuant to Social Services Law § 383-c for visitation, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), dated January 22, 2013, which, without a hearing, in effect, denied her petition to revoke a surrender agreement.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The mother commenced this proceeding to revoke an agreement surrendering her two children to their great aunt and uncle. The mother alleged, inter alia, that at the time she executed the surrender agreement she was 17 years old, under the influence of drugs, and unrepresented by counsel. Accepting the allegations in the petition as true, and affording the mother the benefit of every possible favorable inference *(see Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]), she has sufficiently alleged that she was under duress at the time she executed the surrender agreement *(see*Social Services Law § 383 [6] [d]; *cf. Matter of Robert Jordan G. [Robert D.],*97 AD3d 576 [2012]; *Matter of Gino Z.,*4 AD3d 631, 632 [2004]). Accordingly, the Family Court should not have, in effect, summarily denied the petition, and the matter must be remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings on the petition.

Dickerson, J.E, Chambers, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MICHAEL MCCLENTON

PETITION OF: CHERYL STURM

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 119 EM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of January, 2019, in consideration of the Application for 

Leave to Withdraw, this matter is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of 

Philadelphia County for that court to determine whether Michael McClenton’s present 

counsel should be permitted to withdraw. 

If present counsel is permitted to withdraw, the court is DIRECTED to resolve any 

issues relative to Michael McClenton being appointed counsel or granted leave to 

proceed pro se. 

The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is DIRECTED to enter its 

order regarding this remand within 60 days and to promptly notify this Court of its 

determination.
#### Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., et al., Respondents, v New York State Division of Human Rights, Appellant, et al., Respondent.

[664 NYS2d 685]

Mikoll, J. P.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Rose, J.), entered April 4, 1997 in Broome County, which granted petitioners’ application, in a proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298, to annul a determination of respondent State Division of Human Rights dismissing respondent Therone Williams’ discrimination complaint for administrative convenience.

In September 1995, respondent Therone Williams, an African-American, filed a complaint with respondent State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter SDHR) alleging that he had been discharged from his employment with petitioner Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. because of discrimination based on race and physical disability. Pursuant to Williams’ November 1996 request, SDHR dismissed the complaint for administrative convenience on the ground that Williams had commenced an action in Federal court based upon the same allegations charged in the administrative complaint. Petitioners then commenced this action pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to annul the administrative dismissal and remand the claims to SDHR. Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that the dismissal was purely arbitrary in that it contravened the election of remedies provisions of Executive Law § 297 (9) and thereby violated SDHR’s regulations. This appeal by SDHR ensued.

Inasmuch as the parties have executed a stipulation of settlement completely resolving the underlying dispute, we find that this appeal is now moot *(see, Marine Midland Bank v Cohen,*125 AD2d 827; *Matter of Starmer v Whitney Point Cent. School Dist.,*96 AD2d 640). Furthermore, contrary to SDHR’s contention, this case does not involve issues that warrant preserving it as an exception to the mootness doctrine *(see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d 707).

In any event, were we to address the merits, we would find that the administrative convenience dismissal was purely arbitrary *(see, Marine Midland Bank v New York State Div. of Human Rights,*75 NY2d 240). There is nothing in the record to suggest that Williams intended to pursue his Federal remedy prior to filing his administrative complaint, or that he filed *686such complaint as a prerequisite to commencing the Federal action *(cf., Eastman Chem. Prods, v New York State Div. of Human Rights,*162 AD2d 157, 158). Moreover, the fact that over a year elapsed between the filing of the administrative complaint and the commencement of the Federal action indicates that Williams initially intended to elect an administrative remedy. Thus, in dismissing the complaint for administrative convenience SDHR was not effectuating Williams’ election of remedies to proceed in an administrative forum *(see, Mitsubishi Bank v New York State Div. of Human Rights,*176 AD2d 689, 690). The dismissal therefore contravened the provisions of Executive Law § 297 (9) and SDHR’s regulations *(see,*9 NYCRR 465.5 [e] [2]) and was purely arbitrary.

White, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3386 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1165 2nd Avenue in Des Moines, Iowa, as the ‘‘Iraq and Afghanistan 

Veterans Memorial Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 29, 2009 

Mr. BOSWELL (for himself, Mr. LATHAM, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. BRALEY of 

Iowa, and Mr. LOEBSACK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1165 2nd Avenue in Des Moines, Iowa, as 

the ‘‘Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Memorial Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS MEMO4 RIAL POST OFFICE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 1165 2nd Avenue in Des Moines, 

7 Iowa, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Iraq and Af8 ghanistan Veterans Memorial Post Office’’. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 3386 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Iraq and Afghanistan 

5 Veterans Memorial Post Office’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
1... See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-019-CV

GARRY GIBBONS APPELLANT

V.

KAREN CULWELL BARNETT APPELLEE

----------

FROM THE 367 DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY TH

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT 1

----------

We have considered appellee’s “Agreed First Amended Motion To Dismiss

Appeal Based On Mootness.” It is the court’s opinion that the motion should

be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A),

43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution

issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d), 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL D: DAUPHINOT, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and MCCOY, J.
DELIVERED: April 17, 2008
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a - 14(a) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT 0F 1934, AS AMENDED,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, David I. Davis certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of CoConnect, Inc. (formerly Advanced Wireless Communications, Inc.).



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.



4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a -15(e) and 15d -15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.





/s/ David I. Davis

David I. Davis, President and Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)



December 21, 2005
EXHIBIT 10.13

[GRAPHIC OMITTED]
 BRIGHTEC
    ooo Be Brilliant.
                                     ADVANCED LUMITECH INC. d/b/a BRIGHTEC
                                     8c Pleasant Street, First Floor
                                     South Natick, MA 01760

                                     508/647-9710 T
                                     508/647-9711 F

                                     pplanche@brightec.com
                                     www.brightec.com

May 12, 2006

Francois PLANCHE
81 Boulevard de la Cluse
1205 Geneva
Switzerland


Dear Francois:

         This will confirm the agreement between Advanced Lumitech, Inc. d/b/a
Brightec (the "Company") and you concerning your agreement to allow the Company
to redeem, effective as of the date hereof, 208,334 shares (the "Shares") of the
Company's common stock, $.001 par value (the "Common Stock"), owned by you in
order to allow the Company to fulfill its commitments to issue shares of its
Common Stock to certain investors in the Company. In connection with the
Company's redemption of the Shares, the Company and you agree that the Company
shall not pay you any consideration in connection with the redemption, provided,
however, that the Company will use its best efforts to increase the number of
authorized shares of its Common Stock as soon as reasonably practicable after
the date hereof and that, upon such event, it will issue 208,334 replacement
shares (the "Replacement Shares") to you (adjusted for any stock split, stock
dividend or similar recapitalization occurring after the date hereof and prior
to such issuance) for no additional consideration. The Company further agrees
that if the Company is sold prior to the issuance of the Replacement Shares,
whether pursuant to a merger, sale of all or substantially all of the Company's
assets or otherwise, you shall be treated as the owner of such Replacement
Shares for purposes of determining any proceeds of such transaction
distributable to you.

         Please execute the counterpart copy of this letter in the space
provided to indicate your agreement to the foregoing upon which this letter
shall become a binding agreement between the Company and you.


                                       Very truly yours,

                                       Advanced Lumitech, Inc.
                                       d/b/a Brightec


                                       By: /s/ PATRICK PLANCHE
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Patrick Planche

Agreed and acceptable
this 12th day of May, 2006

/s/ FRANCOIS PLANCHE
--------------------------------
Francois Planche
**EXHIBIT 31.1**SECTION 302CERTIFICATIONI, Thomas J. Mazzarisi, Chief Executive Officer of JAG Media Holdings, Inc., certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2008 of JAGMedia Holdings, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in the report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: March 24, 2008       /s/ Thomas J. Mazzarisi         Thomas J. Mazzarisi    Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 13.1

Section 906 Certificate        Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of GW Pharmaceuticals plc, a public limited company incorporated under English law (the "company"),
hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended September 30, 2013 (the "Form 20-F") of the company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
company.

Date:
November 25, 2013

/s/ JUSTIN GOVER Justin Gover Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
---

CONSENT OF EXPERT

March 19, 2012

Augusta Resource Corporation

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

Ladies and
  Gentlemen:

Re: Augusta Resource Corporation

I, Robert Fong, do hereby
consent to the filing of the written disclosure regarding the technical report
entitled Rosemont Copper Project Updated Feasibility Study, dated January 14,
2009 for the Rosemont Project located in Pima County, Arizona in the Form 40-F
Annual Report dated March 19, 2012, and any amendments thereto, and the Annual
Information Form of Augusta Resource Corporation (the Company) dated March 19,
2012.

I also consent to the use of my
name in the Companys Form 40-F Annual Report, and any amendments thereto, and
the Annual Information Form dated March 19, 2012 and to the incorporation by
reference of the Companys Annual Report on Form 40-F and any amendments
thereto, and the Annual Information Form dated March 19, 2012 in the Companys
Form S-8 Registration Statement (SEC File No. 333-173297).

| | By: | /s/ Robert Fong                  
| | --- | ---------------------------------
| |     | Robert Fong, P.E.                
| |     | Principal Mining Engineer        
| |     | Moose Mountain Technical Services

---
The State of



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 9, 2015

N o. 04

- 13

- 00569

- CR

Kristi Rene NIX

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B11614

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Marilyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

After her court

- appointed attorney filed an Anders brief, Appellant Kristi Nix filed a pro

se brief on November 18, 2014 . Her brief did not request oral argument. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

38.1(e); 39.7. On December 10 , 2014, acting pro se, Appellant moved this court to grant her oral

argument.

Appellant’s motion to grant oral argument is DENIED. See id. R. 39.1 ( listing reasons

the court may d eny oral argument ).

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 9th day of January, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court