United States Court of Appeals
         For the Eighth Circuit
     ___________________________

             No. 13-3104
     ___________________________

        In re: Chelsea Ann Conway

            lllllllllllllllllllllDebtor

          ------------------------------

            Chelsea Ann Conway

    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

                        v.

         National Collegiate Trust

   lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

        First Marblehead Corp., Inc.

         lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant
                 ____________

 Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy
   Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit
              ____________

          Submitted: June 4, 2014
            Filed: June 9, 2014
              [Unpublished]
              ____________
Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
                       ____________
PER CURIAM.

       National Collegiate Trust (NCT) appeals from the judgment of the Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel (BAP) reversing the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that debtor
Chelsea Conway had reasonably reliable future financial resources with which to pay
her entire student loan debt to NTC. Reviewing the Bankruptcy Court’s finding of
facts for clear error and its conclusion of law de novo, the BAP determined that
excepting from discharge all of Conway’s obligations to NTC would impose an
“undue hardship” under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). But the BAP remanded for a separate
“undue hardship” discharge analysis of each of Conway’s fifteen individual debts to
NCT. We have independently reviewed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision, applying
the same standard of review as the BAP. See Walker v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp.
(In re Walker), 

, 1230 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review). We affirm
for the reasons stated by the BAP. See Conway v. Nat’l Collegiate Trust (In re
Conway), 

(B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2013). In addition, contrary to NCT’s
arguments on appeal, we find no abuse of discretion in the BAP’s decision to reach
the merits of the Bankruptcy Court’s decision despite immaterial deficiencies in the
record on appeal, see Wilson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Wilson), 

,
69–70 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2009), no contravention of congressional intent with regard
to the discharge analysis, and no abuse of discretion in the decision to remand for
further proceedings. Accordingly, we affirm.
                        ______________________________




                                        -2-