alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
• REF ID:A2728. ~ 

WAR DEPARTMENT 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF SIGNAL OFFICE~ 

WASHINGTON 

March 23, 19.34 

lfr. Rowe, Patel)t Section. 

1. I have read ovet' 1our act.ion resPQDsfve to Patent 

Off1ca action dated Octobe:r 9 and think you have covered 

the case admirab]¥. I ha.- noted three cor~•ctions, two 

of whioh ve Qf minor :a.lture, Page .2 md PlttJ& 7. 

2. on Page3 the corre-ction I have inserted ia 1ntey,aded to •ake specif1e application to cr.yptographs emplof:iac rot.etable circuit chqe~s as the ba.ais for c:cypto- gr~:c 'action, beo.ause in Uorehouse and also. 1~ Verrua 

extenlal key tapes are used btlt llOtording to a whollJ' dif· 

£er9'1:t· 017ptographic principle. The •• in which Claims 6 

to 10. read in this regard is certainly sufficiently lla1ted 

in application so th1'!.t the exaainer ought not to feel that 

we are tryio.g to claim llorebauae .and Yernaa. 

)• . Y.ou ecmt .iae a copy of the patent .applic;ation and 

. the dr•1afe, ·bl.it ! do not have· Ii copy of the firs~ action 1 for 1111 f'J,lea. I would like to have the latter u well as 

a copy o'f 7our resl)Onse as •ended ~ my St.tgge•tW correct'."' 

. .ions, 

· .William Y. Friedll~th 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 09-13-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from American
Electromedics  Corp.  Form  10-QSB for the period  ended  April 30,  2000 and is
qualified in its entirety by refernce to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                         8,868
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  23
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    90
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               274
<PP&E>                                         1,001
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (218)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 23,154
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,528
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,711
<OTHER-SE>                                     19,915
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   23,154
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,563
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (10,700)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (69)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                7,206
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (781)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            7,987
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   7,987
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .47




</TABLE>
I • 

. ~ . , ~.. : ';o'f.I,. • 

,... " ~- : 

. . ) .. 

. . 

·o REF ID:A4l4892b 

5th, April l 9 1 9 

) 

Captain John Manly: M. I. B •.• General Staff: . . 

i.· Attached letter tram Colonel Pabyen, dated 31st, March 1919, 

was torwar~d to r?e by Mr Gherardi , N. Y. C. Inasmuch as it believed tbs t 

same may ,b~ ot interest to you in connection with recent developments in 

the case of the re}Jllted "breaking" of the Printing Telegraph C ipber, 

same io foryzarded.. ' ~ 

.Attachment 

I ' 

, .. 

. ' 

J. o. Maull orgne. 

Engineering Gnd Research Di Vision 

Executive 

@'pQroved_ for Release bv NSA on 11-19-2014 pursuant to E .0. 13526 . ' 

I 
r- -----

.. 

1 

i 

~1 

! 

l 

l 

j 

J I , 

l 

' I . 

\. 

/ 

B~Iss. F.ABYAif & 'CO. 

..__._".-· ' .... _.~ ... ..,. . .._, . . .... 

3475 128801@ 

¢~.icago MQ.rc~ 3J;, l~l.9. 

~ ·~~a~Mr. Pne~~td~: 

~-u ~llJi.v~: YQ~; ·Ie~t~;· ,~n$1 · ·t~~· ;f'~e;~~~ ·~te as: -f!~ated. I . . ~-;dJ~l18fllf'i.i.P"--·~>a&:SSf!fiSiki'al*) 

_- ,4~~· -2).'Q~! ·~n~~Jl-4' lg,μ t9 .9p~s~rqerJ11~. ·t~r~~' ~!~1!~t- a.~ '8' fot,mal demand fo·r a 

d~~fl-~~ f9t. ~~.:Q~~~t~; ;n -~~c1;, -~ ·¥! _c;>1j" -~ ,t;l.$~t. ·~ud: cou+, d nc;> t indu~ge in a dir 

~~r· 4f ;. ~~4- tbe· }9~P.Q~t~~~ ~~. 

:;; :~· Q, ~~~} ~9.P~~~qtj~ -i!i~~ .. ;{'~ «~i~A,e:;o ;t1 de~i:pherable 

.~;9y·~~e~; ~:tl~te· ~~ ;.~fl9~~l'i 9~ ~~· -~nd: ._gri~ ~a ~~9ug~ ·tirn~,enough brains anc 

lil.C.~i;\i.+-Y.!!: f9 jyo_¥Jij ~-n ;~t}'t!>lll \i,i@li' .f?f 1;hi! 2a: ,g~r<Li;~Brs- i~ ~nougjl. The 32 

·9.1*r~9t~t~. :p9mp~!:¢.~1;~. :~ t .J ~~if- ~~~- ·!l~c~ pie;>~~-. 4:. ~;~J?,~~"t;, i ~ye profound 

~t.~~.J?.'!¢..~· '.f9~: ;.~~~: sg:~.1,?.ll.~; ~t~.Il~Atjg, M~c;p,·~ne, ~QQ. t.ti~· b;r:l;A~~ij' \th~dh conceived 

:r ... -. 

¥!~:· 

1$~μ¢e~~~~w -~Q\lrij·-, 

.J4r·"·'.B~nc~9?t: 'Gh.~rar4* •: tf $gd); 1ABYA1f 

;Engineer. ·of Plan~ .. - (Amef:i:·c~n· :'l'~lep~.9?J~ (~n:4 '.~~ieg#p~ rpq, ., 19~ Broa.4w~y ,, "· · ., · · · 

-New :York ·N· ·f-. -~ "'"":-. ~'!~ .... ~ 

l~l, :~~a~ fd'ql;prl~~ ¥,a~.bg~~mp: 

·thi:~· ~~ _.f.9t ·y9u;!' -~nf~rmat~qn. \ 

.. 

'
PriceWaterhouseCoppers LLP Letter



 Exhibit 10.10 
 August 2, 2011 
 Securities and Exchange Commission 

100 F Street, N.E. 
 Washington, DC 20549

 Commissioners: 
 We have read the
statements made by Broder Bros., Co. (copy attached), which we understand will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Item 14 of Form 10, as part of the Form 10 of Broder Bros., Co dated August 2, 2011. We agree with
the statements concerning our Firm in Item 14 of such Form 10. 
 Very truly yours, 

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
### NU MBE R 13- 09- 0008 6-C V 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ KY LE G. ST OCKTON , AS REP RES ENTAT IVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARET EL IZAB ET H B AI LE Y , D EC EA SE D , Ap pe l l an t,
v . C H AR LE S M . M OR GA N , J R . A N D M ARYP . M OR GA N , Ap pe l l ee s.

____ ____ ____ ____ __ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ On A pp ea l from th e Prob at e C ou rt of H i da l go C ou nty , T ex as .

____ ____ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ch ief Ju stice Va lde z an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam Appel lan t per

fected an appeal from a jud g ment ent ered by the Probate Cou rtof Hi dal go Co u n ty, Tex as, i n c ause number P- 30,028-A. Appel lan t has fil ed an ag re ed mo tion to dismiss the app eal. Ap pellan t requests tha t this Court dism iss the ap pea l.2

The Co urt, hav ing co nsi dered th e documents on f il e and appel lan t’ s a g re ed moti on to di smi ss the appeal , i s o f t h e o p ini on th at t he moti on s houl d be g ra nted. See T EX . R. A PP . P

. 4 2

. 1 ( a )

. A p p e l l a n t ’ s mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s i s g ra n t e d , a n d t h e a p p e a l is hereby DI SM ISSE D. Cos ts w il l be ta x ed ag ain st appel lan t. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 2.1( d) ( "Abse nt ag re ement of the par

ti es, the cour

t w il l tax cos ts ag ain st the a ppel lan t.")

. Hav ing di smi ss ed the a ppeal at appell ant’ s req uest , no moti on for re hear ing w il l be ent ertai ned, and our mandate w il l is sue forthw it h.

PERC UR IAM Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 9t h day

of Jul y , 200 9.
,1'; re if

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0462

ROBERT L. ROSE,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee.

FILED

JAN 2 6 2021

Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court Stete nf monterla

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant's motion for an extension of time to file his reply

brief, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and

including February 19, 2021, within which to file his reply brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

DATED this a \oday of January, 2021.

For the Court,

By

Chief Justice

01/27/2021

Case Number: DA 19-0462
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 12542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05321]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 03/03-0236]


Legg Mason SBIC Mezzanine Fund, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption 
Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of 
Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Legg Mason SBIC Mezzanine Fund, L.P., 
2330 W. Joppa Road, Suite 320, Lutherville, MD 21093, a Federal 
Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended 
(the ``Act''), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has 
sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, 
Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Legg 
Mason SBIC Mezzanine Fund, L.P. has provided equity financing to Die 
Cast Holdings, Inc., 3400 Wentworth Drive SW., Wyoming, MI 49509. The 
proceeds were used to recapitalize the company.
    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec.  107.730(a)(1) 
of the Regulations because an individual that was an employee of Legg 
Mason SBIC Mezzanine Fund, L.P.'s investment advisor at the time of the 
financing became an officer of Die Cast Holdings, Inc. within the six 
month period following the financing, and therefore this transaction is 
considered financing an Associate requiring SBA prior written 
exemption.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on the transaction within fifteen days of the date of 
this publication to the Associate Administrator for the Office of 
Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 
Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.

    Dated: February 25, 2015.
Javier E. Saade,
Associate Administrator for Office of Investment and Innovation.
[FR Doc. 2015-05321 Filed 3-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTHA JO PETERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-55375

D.C. No. 5:13-cv-01735-JGB-DTB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2017**

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. 

Martha Jo Peters appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing her diversity action alleging state law claims arising out of foreclosure 

proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a 

district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 24 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-55375 

Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We 

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Peters’ action because Peters failed to 

allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim for relief. See United States v.

FMC Corp., 531 F.3d 813, 820 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[U]nder Ninth Circuit precedent, 

incidental third-party beneficiaries may not enforce consent decrees . . . .”); see 

also Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 

2008) (“A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal may be based on either a lack of a cognizable

legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal

theory.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 18 and 21) are denied.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CARL STREETER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 589 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of December, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
involves regular software updates and constant inspection for assessment of any damaged

hardware.

Summary

IR DISTRO INC seeks an exemption from the following Regulations: 14 C.F.R.

21, subpart H; 14 C.P.R. a5.23(b);14 C.F.R. $$ 61.113 (a) & (b); 14 C.F.R. $ 91.7

(a); 14 C.F.R. $ el.e (bX2); 14 C.F.R. $ e1.103(b); 14 C.F.R. $ 91.109; 14 C.F.R. $

9r.tI9;14 C.F.R. $ 91.121; 14 C.F.R. $ 91.151(a); 14 C.F.R. $$ 91.203(a) and (b);

14 C.F.R. $ 91.40s (a); t4 C.F.R. $ el.407 (a) (1); l4 C.P.R.$ 91.40e (a)(D; A

C.P.R. $ 91.409 (a)(2); and,14 C.P.R.$$ 91.417 (a) & (b) to operate its UAS for research,

development and demonstration to government/non-government, Community education. IR

DISTRO INC will offer education to change the present and change the future. America's

economic future is bright if IR DISTRO INC is granted the opportunity to educate our

communities to be respectful and responsible operators as hobbyist and future professionals of

UAS. Granting IR DISTRO INC request for exemption will reduce current risk levels and

thereby enhance safety. Further IR DISTRO INC operates at lower altitudes and in the line of

sight. IR DISTRO INC owners will be a good resource for Government and communities to be

educated if exemption is granted. UAS's and therefore the likelihood of death or serious bodily

injury are significantly limited.

IR DISTRO INC respectfully requests that the FAA grants its exemption request without delay.

The FAAhas the authority to issue the exemption sought by IR DISTRO INC.

Sincerely

{n D,slu 1t4

Joel Bredow

CEO

-t

-/ ./ //4/ {-25-zct5
FRO;~: PH;T PlNG QHTNA 

c ~- 'G ~ ar ·.c l'h):~ 

•. it!"lin I•J 

:J · T~ 23. 11arch 1949 

c -Ji;-r.;rn. __ J._J..,4.,7""'5...._ _____ nr.7~ __ .;.;2~o_!vla..;;;,;:;r;..,;c;.;;;h;;.....;;l~9;;...4~9~----

: , ~~ ~ t Sl.fi 

(nr::U1ch) 

.A.SA 

Tu: Mr Aust in 

(':lr:;.::lch) 

Lt. Col Hill 

(Ofl'ic3r) 

Mr Austin 

(Officer) 

Chrn;;c c!' c.ction rcqu:::.:;·L9d b"Jf _.S~M-I------~ ... t ..... _....C_o., .... l___H_.i.,,.l=l.,__ __ (branch) {Officer) 

Tn"i..tials rec Ti"'le 154QZ 

ID Journal No. 231 21 iviar 1949 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 04-14-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

. 

• 

,. 

~ L ----~I .,,... 

,.._.,. ........ _ _. 
CLA.SSIFIED 

·"··' ~,_. AAi'iA • ~ • C~nt~::7.:~lt7 9 .. -·-:: 

),, , ;:;,, ~ . DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY / ·. . ~ .... · ~ .,. . 

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS OFF{CE 

INCOMING 

M ESS~GE 

CGRPIBEH'fIA:L PARAPHRASE NOT REQUIRED PRIORITY • . ·tf·~~- . - ~-·,.ii'~. 

' 

STATE DEPT• MSG ..... .!t~·~· .. . . . - . .. --

Prom: Consul General Peiping China sgd Cl~bb 

To: Secretary of State . -.... ·~, ;a.x ' •· ... l",."i::* . Nr: 444 

Rec'd by STATE: . ~ECONTEL 441, March 19. 

20 Mar 49 

20 Mar 49 

Representative Military Control Commission last 

evening cRlled consular compound and questioned gateman re 

various matters pertaining to consulate including radio. In 

accord standing instructions g1teman replied unit'o!'llled, sug-- gested officer should visit during office hours. Watter 

stated he wpuld return 0900 Monday. 

British consular reports still no visit th1e office. 

Sent Department, repeated Nanking and Shanghai. 

"' . 

.. .....::- -, :1 """~ ....... 

A . ., fi ~ ./• ~.;" < "G 

. ti ~ .... . .; .:.:= .~ ' 

, t~ I ~Oit 

'I. 

.... 

NOT~: 441 is CM IN 11474 

/ 

~' (22 Mar) ID 

ACTION: ID CSCAS-8& 

INFO AF Po ~s~-~:; :tJ ' . 

• 

CM IN 11475 {22 Mai• 49) DTO 20/l pm mlt/A 

........... ~ 

• • ... 11t --.. ·~~~ 

I j• ~ ·-~ ..... ....... ~. 

- . - ~ 

.• ,_~:;~ 

x RrrFR~NCl FILED IN: fo \iiilr.N~\ ffq_ 2 3 l ivlJ->.r<. 2 2 1 949 . . 

14 

2 .•.•••••••••••••••••••• 

DA SCO FO °"21-') 15 JA.N 19 'l) ~· • ••••••••••••••••• COPY NO. 

I • . ' 
; REF· ID: A66'e0"1. 

794.4 

,. 

·b 

.·_1; 

~----·-, -.. ---------~,.·~, 

'I 

I 

l · I .. '. '~---..·..1:.:-J' ._-----·-·--'' -.. 

.-•· .. "
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

JASON KOKINDA, § 

 § No. 266, 2016 

 Defendant Below, § 

 Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court of the 

 § State of Delaware 

 v. § 

 § C.A. No. N16M-03-197 

STATE OF DELAWARE, § 

 § 

 Plaintiff Below, § 

 Appellee. § 

Submitted: August 30, 2016 

Decided: November 17, 2016 

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 

ORDER

 This 17th day of November 2016, it appears to the Court that: 

 (1) In the Superior Court, the appellee, State of Delaware, filed a motion 

to designate the appellant, Jason Kokinda, as a Tier II sex offender (hereinafter 

“motion to designate”).1 A hearing was held before a Superior Court 

commissioner. Kokinda appeared at the hearing and filed a written opposition to 

the motion to designate. By order dated April 25, 2016 and docketed on April 27, 

the Commissioner granted the motion to designate. 

 

1

 11 Del. C. § 4121(n) (Supp. 2016). 
2 

 (2) On May 4, 2016, Kokinda filed a “motion to alter/amend/or suspend 

judgment” seeking review of the April 27 order. The Commissioner denied the 

“motion to alter/amend/or suspend judgment” on May 9, 2016. 

 (3) Kokinda filed a notice of appeal. Upon receipt of the appeal, the 

Clerk issued a notice directing Kokinda to show cause why the appeal should not 

be dismissed for this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to consider an appeal directly 

from a Commissioner’s order. 

 (4) In response to the notice to show cause, Kokinda asks the Court to 

“consider the appeal despite any technical defects or irregularities in procedures.” 

Kokinda explains that he did not realize that the April 25 hearing was held before a 

commissioner and not a judge. Also, Kokinda contends that the “motion to 

alter/amend/or suspend judgment,” which sought review of the April 27 order, 

should have been ruled on by a judge and not by the Commissioner who issued the 

order. 

 (5) In the absence of intermediate review by a Superior Court judge, this 

Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal directly from a Superior Court 

commissioner’s order.2

 Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed. 

 (6) Having reviewed the record, including the transcript of the April 25 

hearing, the Court concludes that Kokinda should be permitted ten days from the 

 

2 Kostyshyn v. City of Wilmington, 2006 WL 2771733 (Del. Sept. 25, 2006) (citing Del. Const. 

art. IV, § 11(1)(a)). 
3 

date of this Order to file written objections to the Commissioner’s April 27 order.3 

Upon the expiration of the ten-day period, the Superior Court should conduct the 

required de novo review and issue a final order in the case.4

 Kokinda may then file 

a notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s final order. 

 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 

that the appeal is DISMISSED. The matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court 

for further proceedings consistent with this Order. Jurisdiction is not retained. The 

mandate shall issue forthwith. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Justice 

 

3

 Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 132. 

4

Id.
**EXHIBIT 21**

|Parent                               |                        |                                      
|------------------------------------ | ---------------------- | -------------------------------------
|                                     |                        |                                      
|Southern Missouri Bancorp, Inc.      |                        |                                      
|                                     |                        |                                      
|Subsidiaries(a)                      | Percentage ofOwnership | Jurisdiction or State ofIncorporation
|                                     |                        |                                      
|Southern Missouri Bank and Trust Co. | 100%                   | Missouri                             
|SMS Financial Services, Inc.(b)      | 100%                   | Missouri                             

|(a) | The operation of the Company's wholly owned subsidiaries are included in the Company's Financial
Statements contained in Item 7 hereof.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(b) | Wholly-owned subsidiary of Southern Missouri Bank and Trust Co.