alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Walter Norton

v. Civil No. 06-cv-490-PB

Cross Border Initiative Task Force et al

ORDER STRIKING DOCUMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 5.2

DOCUMENT/FILER: #144, SURREPLY to Reply to [114] MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by

Walter Norton

DATE FILED: April 13, 2009

The document above fails to comply with: 

LR 7.1(e)(3) Surreply memo is not permitted without prior leave of court

It is herewith ordered that the document is stricken, returned herewith to the submitting party, and

must be refiled. 

SO ORDERED.

April 14, 2009

/s/ Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Walter Norton, pro se

Counsel of Record

Case 1:06-cv-00490-PB Document 146 Filed 04/14/09 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 4.17

Number of Shares: 10,000

Date of Grant: May 20, 2002


                            Stock Option Agreement



Agreement made this 20th day of May, 2002, between Karl M. Eppich ("Optionee")
and U. S. Energy Corp. (the "Company").

1. GRANT OF OPTION. The Company, pursuant to the provisions of the Company's
Incentive Stock Option Plan ("Plan"), hereby grants to the Optionee, subject to
the terms and conditions set forth or incorporated herein, an Option to purchase
from the Company all or any part of an aggregate of 10,000 Common Shares, at the
purchase price of $3.82 per share. The provisions of the Plan governing the
terms and conditions of the Option granted hereby are incorporated herein by
reference.

In the event of any conflict between this Agreement and the Plan, the Plan shall
control.

2. EXERCISE. This Option shall be exercisable in whole or in part (in multiples
of 100 Shares, unless for the balance of this Option) on or before December 7,
2011, subject to earlier termination or cancellation as provided in this
Agreement.

This Option shall be exercisable by delivery to the Company of a notice of
election to exercise, in the form attached hereto, specifying the number of
Shares to be purchased and accompanied by payment of the full purchase price. A
copy of this Stock Option Agreement shall also be delivered to the Company along
with the notice of election of exercise, for the Company's endorsement of
exercise on Schedule I and return to the Optionee for his or her records.

U. S. ENERGY CORP.



By:   /s/  Keith G. Larsen
    ------------------------------
         President
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 187 (Thursday, September 25, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22596]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Part 51


Use of Government Sources by Contractors

CFR Correction

    In title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, revised as 
of October 1, 2007, on page 956, in Sec.  51.107, the last sentence is 
removed.

[FR Doc. E8-22596 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 189 (Monday, September 29, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 56534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22825]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-143716-04]
RIN 1545-BD67


Declaratory Judgments--Gift Tax Determinations; Hearing 
Cancellation

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed 
rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document cancels a public hearing on proposed regulations 
under section 7477 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) regarding 
petitions filed with the United States Tax Court for declaratory 
judgments as to the valuation of gifts.

DATES: The public hearing, originally scheduled for October 16, 2008 at 
10 a.m. is cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Funmi Taylor of the Publications and 
Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel 
(Procedure and Administration) at (202) 622-3628 (not a toll-free 
number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  A notice of proposed rulemaking and a 
notice of public hearing that appeared in the Federal Register on 
Monday, June 9, 2008 (73 FR 32503) announced that a public hearing was 
scheduled for October 16, 2008, at 10 a.m. in the IRS Auditorium, 
Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC. The subject of the public hearing is under section 7447 of the 
Internal Revenue Code.
    The public comment period for these regulations expired on 
September 8, 2008. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the hearing 
were due on September 16, 2008. The notice of proposed rulemaking and 
notice of public hearing instructed those interested in testifying at 
the public hearing to submit a request to speak and an outline of the 
topics to be addressed. As of Monday, September 22, 2008, no one has 
requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for October 
16, 2008, is cancelled.

LaNita Van Dyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, 
Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. E8-22825 Filed 9-26-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### Rebecca M. Church, Appellant, v Ian R. McCabe, Respondent.

[808 NYS2d 204]

*455Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered June 16, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for pendente lite maintenance and granted defendant’s cross motion declaring the parties’ separation agreement valid, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since neither party disputes that their separation agreement is in a format recognized under, and governed by, Hong Kong law, and that the wife’s pendente lite application is governed by section 7 of the Hong Kong Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance and section 23 of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance, the court properly analyzed the matter pursuant to *Edgar v Edgar*(3 All ER 887 [1980]), denying plaintiffs motion and upholding the agreement. The record reflects that plaintiff had ample opportunity to consider the impact of the agreement before she signed it. Indeed, plaintiff conceded that she made various revisions, and has not disputed that many of them were incorporated in the agreement. That defendant objected to certain suggestions she made does not constitute what the *Edgar*court called “[u]ndue pressure by one side [or] exploitation of a dominant position to secure an unreasonable advantage” *(id.*at 893). Nor can defendant’s scheduling of the execution of the agreement during the last business hour before plaintiff returned to the United States be considered duress, particularly where plaintiff had two months to read the agreement and propose changes. Unlike in *Edgar,*plaintiff did not have counsel, but she never disputed that she had ample funds in the United States from which she could have paid her own Hong Kong counsel to represent her.

Plaintiffs claim that she did not know defendant’s financial position and what she was accepting relative to the available income or capital is insufficient to show that justice requires that plaintiff be relieved from the terms of the agreement. In seeking pendente lite maintenance, plaintiff elaborated on the lifestyle the parties had in Hong Kong, i.e., when they lived in a five-bedroom, four-bath apartment with a live-in maid and the fact that they had “traveled extensively.” Plaintiff was certainly intelligent enough to differentiate between that and her current lifestyle in a studio with no air conditioning, and thus had a sound understanding of defendant’s finances.

Moreover, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the requisite drastic and unforeseen change in circumstances, as there is no indication of any such change since she began living under the terms of the agreement. That her maintenance ran out was neither unforeseen nor drastic, as she agreed to that in the agreement.

*456We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.
Amendment to Agreement for Sale of Commercial Time



 Exhibit 10.91 
  
 AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF COMMERCIAL TIME 
  
 This Amendment dated as of December 30, 2003 by and between Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. (“Nexstar”) and Mission Broadcasting, Inc.
(“Mission”) is made to that certain Agreement for Sale of Commercial Time dated as of February 16, 1999 by and between VHR Broadcasting of Lubbock, Inc. (“VHR”) and Quorum Broadcasting of Texas, Inc. (“Quorum”), as
amended (the “Agreement”). 
  
 WHEREAS, VHR is the
operator of television broadcast station KAMC, Lubbock, Texas (the “Station”) and its subsidiary VHR Lubbock License, Inc. (“VHR License”) is the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) licensee of the Station;

  
 WHEREAS, Quorum is the operator of television broadcast
station KLBK-TV, Lubbock, Texas and its subsidiary Quorum of Texas License, LLC is the FCC licensee of station KLBK-TV; 
  
 WHEREAS, VHR and Quorum entered into the Agreement for their mutual benefit; 
  
 WHEREAS, pursuant to FCC consent, Kenos Broadcasting, Inc. is (i) acquiring all of VHR’s and VHR License’s rights,
title and interest in and to the Station and then (ii) merging with and into Mission; 
  
 WHEREAS, also pursuant to FCC consent, Nexstar is acquiring Quorum’s and Quorum License’s rights, title and interest in and to KLBK-TV; and 
  
 WHEREAS, Mission and Nexstar intend that the Agreement between VHR and Quorum remain in effect with certain changes in
terms. 
  
 NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the
foregoing, Nexstar and Mission hereby amend the Agreement as follows: 
  
 1. Mission is hereby assuming all of VHR’s and VHR License’s rights and obligations under the Agreement. 
  
 2. Nexstar is hereby assuming all of Quorum’s and Quorum License’s rights and obligations under the Agreement. 
  
 3. Paragraph 3 and Schedule A of the Agreement are deleted in their entirety
and replaced with the following: “Payments. During the term of this Agreement, for the revenues that Nexstar collects pursuant to this Agreement, Nexstar will pay seventy (70) percent of such revenues to Mission (the “Monthly
Payment”). In exchange for the services Nexstar provides under this Agreement, Nexstar will retain thirty (30) percent of the revenues it collects as its fee for such services. The Monthly Payment will be paid on the last day of each month from
and after the month this Amendment is executed and will be prorated for the first month and last month of the Agreement on a calendar day basis. 
  









 4. Mission and Nexstar will negotiate in good faith to further revise the Agreement as necessary to
conform the other terms and conditions of the Agreement to the payment terms set forth in paragraph 3 above. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this amendment as of the date first written above. 
  

			
	 NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ G. Robert Thompson

	 	 	

	 Name:
	 	 G. Robert Thompson

	 Title:
	 	 CFO



  

			
	 MISSION BROADCASTING, INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ David S. Smith

	 	 	

	 Name:
	 	 David S. Smith

	 Title:
	 	 President
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         31,081
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  205,050
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               236,131
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 236,131
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          459,184
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,378,223
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,601,277)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   236,131
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 023

- 2560 LT Case No. 20 02

- CF

- 2231

- A

_____________________________ T R ESTON H OLLINGER , Appellant,

v. S TATE OF F LO RIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________ On appeal fro m the Circuit Court for Seminole County. Donna L. Surratt-McIntosh, Judge. Treston Hollinger, DeFuniak Spring s , pro se. Ashl ey M oody, Atto rney General, Talla hassee, and Whitney Brown Hartless, As sistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach , for Appellee. May 21, 2024
P ER C URIAM . A FFIRMED . W ALLIS , K ILBANE , and P RATT , JJ., concur.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CALTON, INC.
     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

     In connection with the annual report of Calton, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony
J. Caldarone, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and

2.   the information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
     the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: March 14, 2007                 By: /s/ Anthony J. Caldarone
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Anthony J. Caldarone
                                          CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
                                          PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1 Filed 10/20/08 Page 1 of 19
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1 Filed 10/20/08 Page 2 of 19
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1 Filed 10/20/08 Page 3 of 19
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1 Filed 10/20/08 Page 4 of 19
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1 Filed 10/20/08 Page 5 of 19
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1 Filed 10/20/08 Page 6 of 19
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1 Filed 10/20/08 Page 7 of 19
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1 Filed 10/20/08 Page 8 of 19
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1 Filed 10/20/08 Page 9 of 19
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1 Filed 10/20/08 Page 10 of 19
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1 Filed 10/20/08 Page 11 of 19
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1 Filed 10/20/08 Page 12 of 19
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1 Filed 10/20/08 Page 13 of 19
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1 Filed 10/20/08 Page 14 of 19
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1 Filed 10/20/08 Page 15 of 19
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1 Filed 10/20/08 Page 16 of 19
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1 Filed 10/20/08 Page 17 of 19
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1 Filed 10/20/08 Page 18 of 19
Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 1 Filed 10/20/08 Page 19 of 19
Case 1:11-cv-02223-BNB Document 13 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02223-BNB Document 13 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02223-BNB Document 13 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Aidan Constancio LOPEZ-LOPEZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-50025.

D.C. No. CR-01-02382-JM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 10, 2003.*

Decided March 12, 2003.

Before LEAVY, FERNANDEZ and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Aidan Constancio Lopez-Lopez appeals his conviction, pursuant to a conditional guilty plea, for importation of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960.

Lopez-Lopez’s contention that 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 960 are facially unconstitutional is foreclosed by *United States v. Mendoza-Paz,*286 F.3d 1104, 1109-10 (9th Cir. 2002), and *United States v. Buckland,*289 F.3d 558 (9th Cir.) (en banc), *cert. denied,*535 U.S. 1105, 122 S.Ct. 2314, 152 L.Ed.2d 1067 (2002). Lopez-Lopez’s contention that *United States v. Harris,*536 U.S. 545, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002), overrules *United States v. Buckland*and *United States v. Mendoza-Paz*is foreclosed by *United States v. Hernandez,*322 F.3d 592 (9th Cir.2003). His contention that the indictment should be dismissed because it did not allege *mens rea*as to drug type and quantity is foreclosed by *United States v. Carranza,*289 F.3d 634 (9th Cir.2002).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 187 (Thursday, September 25, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22597]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Part 422


Application of Labor Laws to Government Acquisitions

CFR Correction

    In title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 422, revised 
as of October 1, 2007, on page 127, Sec. Sec.  422.1303 and 422.1306 
are redesignated as Sec. Sec.  422.1305 and 422.1308, respectively.

[FR Doc. E8-22597 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
<PAGE>
 
                                                   Exhibit 99.1

Reconciliation of Previously Reported Quarterly Information

On July 29 1994, The Frankford Corporation (Frankford) was merged with Keystone
resulting in the termination of the separate legal existence of Frankford.  The
merger was accounted for under the pooling of interests method of accounting
and, accordingly, the consolidated financial statements were restated.  Columns
one and two of the following presentation represent amounts previously reported
by the individual entities.  Column three, which represents total combined
Keystone as reported in the Annual Report to Shareholders, is the sum of columns
one and two with the exception of earnings per share, which are calculated based
on total average shares of the combined entity after giving effect to the
issuance of shares resulting from the merger.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                            Historical
                             Keystone   Frankford    KFI
<S>                         <C>         <C>        <C>
(In thousands) 
For the quarter ended:
 
March 31, 1994:
 
     Net Interest Income       $38,627     $6,547  $45,174
 
     Net Income                 12,060      1,986   14,046
 
     Earnings Per Share            .63       0.63     0.60
 
June 30, 1994:
 
     Net Interest Income       $39,899     $6,488  $46,387
 
     Net Income                 12,407      1,533   13,940

     Earnings Per Share           0.65       0.48     0.60

</TABLE>
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 7 , 2019.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 18 -00532- CV

PEGGIE STOKES, PEGI JOHNSON, TONIECE WHITE, MADDISON WHITE, Appellants

V.
STAR REALTY INC., ALAN GIRARD, AND MUZA GARARD, Appellees

On Appeal from the 215th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017-19064

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed April 9, 2018

. The reporter’s record was filed August 8, 2018. The clerk’s record was filed October 18, 2018 . No brief

was filed.

On December 6, 2018 , this court issued an order stating that unless appellant s
filed a brief on or before January 3, 2019 , the court would dismiss the a ppeal for2

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

Appellant s filed no brief or other response. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered

dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Bourliot.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2057

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage

under the Medicare Program of immunosuppressive drugs for Medicare

beneficiaries who receive an organ transplant without regard to when

the transplant was received.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 5, 2001

Mr. LATOURETTE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide

for coverage under the Medicare Program of immunosuppressive drugs for Medicare beneficiaries who receive

an organ transplant without regard to when the transplant was received.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Fairness for

5 Organ Transplant Recipients Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 2057 IH

1 SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE DRUGS FOR

2 MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES WITHOUT RE3 GARD TO WHEN AN ORGAN TRANSPLANT OC4 CURRED.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861(s)(2)(J) of the So6 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)(J)) is amended

7 by striking ‘‘for which payment is made under this title’’.

8 (b) STYLISTIC AMENDMENT.—Such section is further

9 amended by striking the comma after ‘‘furnished’’.

10 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

11 this section shall apply to drugs furnished on or after the

12 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

1.0

1.4

1.8

2.2

2.6

3.0

3.4

3.8

Percentage points

Four quarter moving average

All Loans

Commercial and Industrial Loan Rates at Domestic Banks

(Spreads over intended federal funds rate, by loan size)

 Source. Survey of Terms of Business Lending. The most recent quarterly survey occurred November 7-11, 2016

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

0.6

1.0

1.4

1.8

2.2

2.6

3.0

3.4

Percentage points

More than $1,000,000

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

2.4

2.8

3.2

3.6

4.0

4.4

Percentage points

$100,000 to $1,000,000

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

Percentage points

Less than $100,000