Schultz v. United States, 529 F.3d 343, 350-53 (6th Cir. 2008) (Ryan, Siler, Cole) (That disposable income calculation in § 1325(b)(3) uses “means test” which includes consideration of median income based on state and county in which debtor resides does not render BAPCPA nonuniform for purposes of Article 1, § 8, of the Constitution. “[The Supreme Court] . . . has consistently described the Bankruptcy Clause’s uniformity requirement as ‘geographical, and not personal.’ . . . [I]t allows different effects in various states due to dissimilarities in state law, so long as the federal law applies uniformly among classes of debtors. . . . [W]e conclude that the BAPCPA is a constitutionally uniform law. Congress is allowed to distinguish among classes of debtors, and to treat categories of debtors differently, whether it be through the incorporation of varying state laws …. [T]he BAPCPA is uniform in form: all debtors whose income is above the median family income are treated alike, as are all debtors whose income falls below. The resulting differences based on the state in which the debtor resides are analytically indistinguishable from the differences resulting from the incorporation of various state laws… . Congress may permissibly address regional variations . . . based on either state laws or federal statistics.”).