alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12.1 

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Jan Hommen, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of ING Groep N.V.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake 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 cashflows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))for the company 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 to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared; 

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles; 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis report our 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; 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The company’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or personsperforming 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 the company’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 a significant role in the company’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 12, 2012
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 24 (Thursday, February 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 9092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-02274]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: February 6, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
January 29, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
609 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1164, K2025-1164.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-02274 Filed 2-5-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
B.H., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1928

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 13, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 23

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Citizens Bancorp of our report dated August 19, 1998,  except for Note 14, as
to which the date is  September 3, 1998,  included in the 1998 Annual  Report to
Shareholders of Citizens Bancorp.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-61157) pertaining to the Citizens Bancorp Stock Option Plan of
our report dated  August 19,  1998,  except for Note 14, as to which the date is
September 3, 1998,  with respect to the  consolidated  financial  statements  of
Citizens Bancorp  incorporated by reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended June 30, 1998.



                            
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Ernst & Young LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana
September 25, 1998
#### Lelia C. PETTIGREW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security; et al., Defendants, Vernon Arrell, Commissioner of Rehabilitation Commission of Texas, sued in his official capacity under contract with SSA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-41511.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 24, 2004.

John G. Heike, Tyler, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

John Mack Grey, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before SMITH, DUHE, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.1

Leila C. Pettigrew appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims against Ver*962non Arrell, the Commissioner of the Texas Rehabilitation Commission (TRC). Pettigrew argues that the district court had jurisdiction over his claims against Arrell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3).

In the district court, Pettigrew explicitly-abandoned his claim that the district court had jurisdiction over his claims against Arrell pursuant to the Social Security Act as provided for in 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3). Moreover, the district court’s grant of Arrell’s second motion to dismiss was based not on lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 but on the magistrate judge’s determination that Pettigrew failed to argue in his brief to the district court that Arrell unconstitutionally used the framework analysis. Pettigrew does not argue on appeal that the district court erred when it dismissed his 28 U.S.C. § 1331-based claims against Arrell based on Pettigrew’s abandoning them by failing to brief them in the district court. He has therefore waived this issue on appeal. *See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).

Pettigrew’s argument that he should not be required to exhaust administrative remedies on remand lacks merit inasmuch as he has already exhausted his administrative remedies, *see Harper v. Bowen,*813 F.2d 737, 739 (5th Cir.1987).

AFFIRMED.

1

. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
----

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  /s/ Richard W. McCullough                    |   | November 12, 2010 |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------|
| Richard W. McCullough                              |   |
| Chief Executive Officer                            |   |
| Petroleum Development Corporation (dba PDC Energy) |
| Managing General Partner                           |   |
|                                               |   |
|  /s/ Gysle R. Shellum                         |   | November 12, 2010 |
| Gysle R. Shellum                                   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer                            |   |
| Petroleum Development Corporation (dba PDC Energy) |
| Managing General Partner                           |   |
|                                               |   |

----
Charles W. HORN v. Charles H. DUNN and Boyd, Fernambucq, Vincent & Dunn, P.C.

1160026

Supreme Court of Alabama.

November 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Lucner JOSEPH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2531

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case No. 3:17-cv-00359-WHA PROPOSED SEALING ORDER 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Basil P. Fthenakis, Esq. (88399) 

CRITERION LAW 

2225 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 200 

Palo Alto, California 94303 

Tel. (650) 352-8400 

Fax. (650) 352-8408 

Of counsel: 

David S. Godkin (Admitted pro hac vice) 

James E. Kruzer (Admitted pro hac vice) 

BIRNBAUM & GODKIN, LLP 

280 Summer Street 

Boston, MA 02210 

Tel: (617) 307-6100 

Fax: (617) 307-6101 

godkin@birnbaumgodkin.com 

kruzer@birnbaumgodkin.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

SIX4THREE, LLC, a Delaware 

limited liability company 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SIX4THREE, LLC, a Delaware limited 

liability company, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation 

and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00359-WHA 

PROPOSED SEALING ORDER 

 

Date: February 16, 2017 

Time: 8:00AM 

Ctrm: 8 

Judge: Honorable William H. Alsup 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 36 Filed 02/17/17 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 3:17-cv-00359-WHA PROPOSED SEALING ORDER 

1

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff Six4Three, LLC’s Administrative 

Motion to File Under Seal the following Exhibits of the Declaration of David S. Godkin in 

Support of Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and 

portions of the reply memorandum referring to these exhibits. 

DOCUMENT DESIGNATING 

PARTY 

Exhibit 3 Facebook 

Exhibit 4 Facebook 

Exhibit 5 Facebook 

Exhibit 6 Facebook 

Exhibit 7 Facebook 

Exhibit 8 Facebook 

Exhibit 9 Facebook 

Exhibit 10 Facebook 

Exhibit 11 Facebook 

Exhibit 12 Facebook 

Exhibit 13 Facebook 

Exhibit 14 Facebook 

Exhibit 15 Facebook 

Exhibit 16 Facebook 

Exhibit 17 Facebook 

Exhibit 18 Facebook 

Exhibit 19 Facebook 

Reply to Defendant’s 

Opposition to Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Remand, pages 

10-15 

Facebook 

 Having reviewed the papers, and being fully advised, the Court finds that there is good 

cause to allow this motion. Therefore, the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is 

GRANTED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED: 

Dated: ____________________ __________________________________ 

 The Honorable William H. Alsup 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 36 Filed 02/17/17 Page 2 of 2
EX PARTE X.D.T.

CR-17-0224

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus pet. denied.
Ilham BOURYAL and Ashraf Ibraham, Appellants, v. Ahmed BADAWY, Sasoun Sasoun, Nishad Khan, Nishad Khan, L.P., a Florida Limited Partnership, Appellees.

Case No. 5D18-829

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 11, 2019

Tyler E. Mesmer, Topouzis & Associates, P.C., Aventura, for Appellants.

Jonathan J. A. Paul, of Lewis Roberts, P.A., Altamonte Springs, for Appellees, Ahmed Badawy and Sasoun Sasoun.

No Appearance for Other Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, C.J., ORFINGER and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
STATE of Louisiana v. Willie DILLON

NO. 2019-KK-0417

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 17, 2019

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
| **Exhibit 32.1** |
|------------------|

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

| In connection    with the Annual Report of China Digital Ventures Corporation a Nevada corporation (the    "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending September 30, 2009, as filed with    the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Con    Unerkov, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge,    pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act    of 2002, that:
    (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
    (2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the    financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to    China Digital Ventures Corporation, and will be retained by China Digital Ventures    Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon    request.
    /s/ Con Unerkov
--------------------------
Con Unerkov
Chief    Executive Officer
    January 12, 2010 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES

Case No. 17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Jennifer Milici, D.C. Bar No. 987096

Joseph R. Baker, D.C. Bar No. 490802

Geoffrey M. Green, D.C. Bar No. 428392

Elizabeth A. Gillen, Cal. Bar No. 260667

Rajesh James, N.Y. Bar No. 4209367

Daniel Matheson, D.C. Bar No. 502490

Kenneth H. Merber, D.C. Bar No. 985703

Mark J. Woodward, D.C. Bar No. 479537

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20580

(202) 326-2912; (202) 326-3496 (fax)

jmilici@ftc.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

 Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a 

Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

RESPONSE TO BRIEF OF AMICUS 

CURIAE NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES 

REGARDING FTC’S MOTION FOR 

PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 899 Filed 10/12/18 Page 1 of 2
2

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES

Case No. 17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For good cause shown, the motion of the Federal Trade Commission for leave to file a 

response to the brief of amicus curiae Nokia Technologies is hereby GRANTED.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: _______________, 2018 ___________________________________

Honorable Lucy H. Koh 

United States District Judge

October 12

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 899 Filed 10/12/18 Page 2 of 2
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUTNARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT CREST 

FINANCIAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(a)(1) -1-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Scott J. Sagaria (SBN 217981)

Elliot W. Gale (SBN 263326)

Joe Angelo (SBN 268542)

SAGARIA LAW, P.C.

2033 Gateway Pl., 5th Floor 

San Jose, CA 95110

Telephone: (408) 279-2288

Facsimile: (408) 297-2299

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VERONICA REINHARDT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CREST FINANCIAL,

Defendant.

Case No.: 5:17-cv-00296-HRL

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH 

PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT CREST 

FINANCIAL PURSUANT TO 

FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL 

PROCEDURE 41(a)(1)

Judge:

Crtrm:

Hon. Howard R. Lloyd

2; Floor 5

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Veronica Reinhardt, pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), hereby voluntarily dismisses defendant Crest Financial, with 

prejudice, as to all claims in this action.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) provides, in relevant in part:

41(a) Voluntary Dismissal

(1) By the Plaintiff

a) Without a Court Order. Subject to Rules 23(3), 23.1(c), 23.2 and 66 and any 

applicable federal statute, the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court 

order by filing:

Case 5:17-cv-00296-HRL Document 8 Filed 03/09/17 Page 1 of 2
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUTNARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT CREST 

FINANCIAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(a)(1) -2-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(1) A notice off dismissal before the opposing party either serves an 

answer or a motion for summary judgment.

Defendant Crest Financial has neither answered Plaintiff’s Complaint nor filed a 

motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the matter may be dismissed against it for all 

purposes and without an Order of the Court.

DATED: March 9, 2017 Sagaria Law, P.C.

By: /s/ Elliot Gale

Elliot Gale

Attorney for Plaintiff Veronica Reinhardt

Case 5:17-cv-00296-HRL Document 8 Filed 03/09/17 Page 2 of 2
N.S. v. R.N. and L.N.

2170055

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 9, 2018

Dismissed.
Luis Osvaldo Lulen FERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2461

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certifications Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of NationalHealth Partners, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarterended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “report”), I, David M. Daniels, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,and I, Alex Soufflas, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do herebycertify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  the reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  the informationcontained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: August 14, 2009 | /s/ David M. Daniels     |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------|
|                        | David M. Daniels         |
|                        | Chief Executive Officer  |
|                        |                     |
|                        |                     |
| Dated: August 14, 2009 | /s/ Alex Soufflas        |
|                        | Alex Soufflas            |
|                        | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
Exhibit10.1 (W0197546).DOC








Exhibit 10.1




Peoples State Bank

Focus Rewards Plan for Executive Officers




The Focus Rewards Plan for Executive Officers provides an annual cash incentive opportunity for executive officers of PSB Holdings, Inc. in their capacities as Bank officers.  Incentive compensation is determined under a formula that derives 20% of the incentive compensation amount from achievement of certain specific Bank-wide financial and non-financial goals, 40% of the incentive compensation amount from the achievement of the Bank’s net income target, and 40% of the incentive compensation amount from the Bank’s return on equity when compared against a peer group of publicly reporting banks.  The peer group is made up of publicly reporting banks and thrifts in the United States with assets between $500 million and $1 billion, as reported by SNL Securities.




The following table illustrates the potential incentive compensation under various scenarios.  Incentive compensation is paid in cash following the determination of results under the plan for the preceding fiscal year.  




										
	Percentile Rank of

	All Specific Bank-wide Goals Achieved


	PSB ROE compared

	% of Bank Budgeted Pre-incentive Net Income Achieved


	to Peer Group

	<95%

	95%

	98%

	100%


	 
	Incentive Compensation as a Percentage of Base Salary


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Less than 50th percentile

	2.0%

	 
	2.8%

	 
	4.4%

	 
	6.0%

	 

	50th to 55th percentile

	6.0%

	 
	6.8%

	 
	8.4%

	 
	10.0%

	 

	55th to 60th percentile

	7.5%

	 
	8.5%

	 
	10.5%

	 
	12.5%

	 

	60th to 65th percentile

	9.6%

	 
	10.9%

	 
	13.4%

	 
	16.0%

	 

	65th to 70th percentile

	12.0%

	 
	13.6%

	 
	16.8%

	 
	20.0%

	 

	70th to 75th percentile

	15.0%

	 
	17.0%

	 
	21.0%

	 
	25.0%

	 

	> 75th percentile

	18.0%

	 
	20.4%

	 
	25.2%

	 
	30.0%

	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Percentile Rank of

	No Specific Bank-wide Goals Achieved


	PSB ROE compared

	% of Bank Budgeted Pre-incentive Net Income Achieved


	to Peer Group

	<95%

	95%

	98%

	100%


	 
	Incentive Compensation as a Percentage of Base Salary


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Less than 50th percentile

	0.0%

	 
	0.8%

	 
	2.4%

	 
	4.0%

	 

	50th to 55th percentile

	4.0%

	 
	4.8%

	 
	6.4%

	 
	8.0%

	 

	55th to 60th percentile

	5.0%

	 
	6.0%

	 
	8.0%

	 
	10.0%

	 

	60th to 65th percentile

	6.4%

	 
	7.7%

	 
	10.2%

	 
	12.8%

	 

	65th to 70th percentile

	8.0%

	 
	9.6%

	 
	12.8%

	 
	16.0%

	 

	70th to 75th percentile

	10.0%

	 
	12.0%

	 
	16.0%

	 
	20.0%

	 

	> 75th percentile

	12.0%

	 
	14.4%

	 
	19.2%

	 
	24.0%