UNITED STATES
                     SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

                                  FORM 10-K


  (Mark one)

  /X/ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
      EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
      For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011

      OR


  / / TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
      EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
      For the transition period from ____________ to ____________



      Commission file number: 333-159791-02

      Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2010-H1
      (exact name of issuing entity as specified in its charter)

      Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc.
      (exact name of the depositor as specified in its charter)

      RWT Holdings, Inc.
      (exact name of the sponsor as specified in its charter)



  New York                                38-3813659
  (State or other jurisdiction of         38-3813660
  incorporation or organization)          (I.R.S. Employer
                                          Identification No.)


   c/o Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
   9062 Old Annapolis Road
   Columbia, MD                                 21045
  (Address of principal executive               (Zip Code)
  offices)


 Telephone number, including area code: (410) 884-2000




  Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

    NONE.



  Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

    NONE.



  Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as
  defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

    Yes ___     No  X



  Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports
  pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.

    Yes ___     No  X



  Note - Checking the box above will not relieve any registrant required to
  file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act from their
  obligations under those Sections.


  Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports
  required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
  of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
  registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to
  such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

    Yes  X      No ___



  Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically
  and posted on its corporate Website, if any, every Interactive Data File
  required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T
  (Section 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for
  such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such
  files).

    Not applicable.



  Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item
  405 of Regulation S-K (Section 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained
  herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in
  definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part
  III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.

    Not applicable.



  Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer,
  an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting
  company.  See the definitions of "large accelerated filer", "accelerated
  filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

   Large accelerated filer ___
   Accelerated filer ___
   Non-accelerated filer X (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
   Smaller reporting company ___

  Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined
  in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).

    Yes ___     No  X



  State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity
  held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the
  common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such
  common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant's most recently
  completed second fiscal quarter.

    Not applicable.



  Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed all documents and
  reports required to be filed by Section 12, 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
  Exchange Act of 1934 subsequent to the distribution of securities under a
  plan confirmed by a court.

    Not applicable.



  Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant's
  classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

    Not applicable.



  DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

  List hereunder the following documents if incorporated by reference and the
  Part of the Form 10-K (e.g., Part I, Part II, etc.) into which the document
  is incorporated: (1)Any annual report to security holders; (2) Any proxy or
  information statement; and (3)Any prospectus filed pursuant to Rule 424(b)
  or (c) under the Securities Act of 1933. The listed documents should be
  clearly described for identification purposes (e.g., annual report to
  security holders for fiscal year ended December 24, 1980).

    Not applicable.





                                     PART I

  Item 1.      Business.

               Omitted.


  Item 1A.     Risk Factors.

               Omitted.


  Item 1B.     Unresolved Staff Comments.

               None.


  Item 2.      Properties.

               Omitted.


  Item 3.      Legal Proceedings.

               Omitted.


  Item 4.      Mine Safety Disclosures.

               Omitted.




                                     PART II

  Item 5.      Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder
               Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

               Omitted.


  Item 6.      Selected Financial Data.

               Omitted.


  Item 7.      Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
               Results of Operations.

               Omitted.


  Item 7A.     Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

               Omitted.


  Item 8.      Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

               Omitted.


  Item 9.      Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and
               Financial Disclosure.

               Omitted.


  Item 9A.     Controls and Procedures.

               Omitted.


  Item 9B.     Other Information.

               None.




                                    PART III

  Item 10.     Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.

               Omitted.


  Item 11.     Executive Compensation.

               Omitted.


  Item 12.     Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management
               and Related Stockholder Matters.

               Omitted.


  Item 13.     Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director
               Independence.

               Omitted.


  Item 14.     Principal Accounting Fees and Services.

               Omitted.




  ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE ITEMS FOR REGULATION AB


Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB, Significant Obligor Financial Information.

No single obligor represents 10% or more of the pool assets held by the issuing
entity.



Item 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB, Significant Enhancement  Provider Financial
Information.

No entity or group of affiliated entities provides any external credit
enhancement or other support for the certificates within this transaction as
described under Item 1114 (a) of Regulation AB.



Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB, Certain Derivatives Instruments (Financial
Information).

No entity or group of affiliated entities provides any derivative instruments
or other support for the certificates within this transaction as described
under Item 1115 of Regulation AB.



Item 1117 of Regulation AB, Legal Proceedings.

On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle (the
"FHLB-Seattle") filed a claim in Superior Court for the State of Washington
(case number 09-2-46348-4 SEA) against Redwood Trust, Inc., the depositor,
Morgan Stanley & Co., and Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc. (collectively, the
"FHLB-Seattle Defendants"). The FHLB-Seattle alleges claims under the
Securities Act of Washington (Section 21.20.005, et seq.) and seeks to
rescind the purchase of a mortgage pass-through certificate (or, residential
mortgage backed securities, "RMBS") issued through the Sequoia RMBS platform
as part of the Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2005-4 securitization transaction and
purchased by the FHLB-Seattle. The FHLB-Seattle also seeks to collect
interest on the original purchase price at the statutory interest rate of 8%
per annum from the date of original purchase (net of interest received), as
well as attorneys' fees and costs. On June 10, 2010, the FHLB-Seattle filed
an amended complaint. Subsequently, on October 18, 2010, the FHLB-Seattle
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the FHLB-Seattle's complaint. Redwood
Trust, Inc. and the depositor additionally moved to dismiss the complaint for
lack of personal jurisdiction. The FHLB-Seattle alleges that the FHLB-Seattle
Defendants' offering materials for this RMBS contained materially untrue
statements and omitted material facts about this RMBS and the loans
securitized in this transaction. Among other things, the FHLB-Seattle alleges
that the FHLB-Seattle Defendants made untrue statements or omissions
regarding the (1) loan-to-value ratios of these mortgage loans and the
appraisals of the properties that secured these mortgage loans, (2) occupancy
status of those properties, (3) underwriting standards of the originators of
these mortgage loans, and (4) ratings assigned to this RMBS. In a series of
rulings issued between June 23, 2011 and August 15, 2011, the Washington
State Superior Court dismissed the allegations relating to occupancy status
and denied other grounds for dismissal. On July 19, 2011, the Court granted
Redwood Trust, Inc. and the depositor's motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction. Redwood Trust, Inc. and the depositor do not know
whether the FHLB-Seattle will appeal or otherwise contest the dismissal, or
file a claim in another jurisdiction. Redwood Trust, Inc. and the depositor
believe that this claim is without merit and intend to defend any action
related to it vigorously. In connection with the issuance of the Sequoia RMBS
that is the subject of the FHLB-Seattle's claim, Redwood Trust, Inc., the
sponsor, and the depositor agreed to indemnify the underwriters of this RMBS
for certain losses and expenses they might incur as a result of claims made
against them relating to this RMBS, including, without limitation, certain
legal expenses. The FHLB-Seattle's claims against the underwriters of this
RMBS were not dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Regardless of the
outcome of this litigation, Redwood Trust, Inc., the sponsor, and the
depositor could incur a loss as a result of these indemnities.

On August 18, 2010, the depositor received service of process with respect to
a claim filed on July 15, 2010 in Superior Court for the State of California
in San Francisco (case number CGC-10-501610) by The Charles Schwab
Corporation ("Schwab"). In the complaint, Schwab is suing the depositor and
26 other named Defendants (collectively, the "Schwab Defendants") in relation
to RMBS sold or issued by the Schwab Defendants. With respect to the
depositor, Schwab alleges a cause of action of negligent misrepresentation
under California state law and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees
and costs with respect to a RMBS issued through the Sequoia RMBS platform as
part of the Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2005-4 securitization transaction (which
is the same transaction at issue in the litigation initiated by the
FHLB-Seattle described in the preceding paragraph). Among other things,
Schwab alleges that the offering materials for this Sequoia RMBS contained
materially untrue statements or omissions regarding this RMBS and the loans
securitized in this securitization transaction, including untrue statements
or omissions regarding the (1) loan-to-value ratios of these mortgage loans
and the appraisals of the properties that secured these mortgage loans, (2)
occupancy status of those properties, (3) underwriting standards of the
originators of these mortgage loans, and (4) ratings assigned to this RMBS.
On September 22, 2011, the Schwab Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint,
and on January 27, 2011, the California State Superior Court denied the
motion on several grounds, and with respect to certain other grounds gave
Schwab the opportunity to amend the complaint. Schwab must file the amended
complaint on or before February 17, 2012. The depositor believes that this
case is without merit and intends to defend the action vigorously. In
connection with the issuance of the Sequoia RMBS that is the subject of
Schwab's claim, Redwood Trust, Inc., the sponsor, and the depositor agreed to
indemnify the underwriters of this RMBS for certain losses and expenses they
might incur as a result of claims made against them relating to this RMBS,
including, without limitation, certain legal expenses. Regardless of the
outcome of this litigation, Redwood Trust, Inc., the sponsor, and the
depositor could incur a loss as a result of these indemnities.

On July 12, 2010, two notices of "Election to Void Sale of Securities"
pursuant to Illinois Securities Law (815 ILCS Section 5/13(A)) were received
from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago ("FHLB-Chicago"). In the notices,
the FHLB-Chicago sought to void its purchase of two RMBS that were issued in
2006 by a securitization trust with respect to which the depositor was the
depositor. Subsequently, on October 15, 2010, the FHLB-Chicago filed a claim
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (case number 10-CH-45033)
against the depositor and more than 45 other named defendants (collectively,
the "FHLB-Chicago Defendants") in relation to RMBS sold or issued by the
FHLB-Chicago Defendants or by entities controlled by the FHLB-Chicago
Defendants. In an amended complaint filed on March 16, 2011, FHLB-Chicago
added as defendants Redwood Trust, Inc. and the sponsor. With respect to
Redwood Trust, Inc. and the depositor, the FHLB-Chicago alleges that the
offering materials for two RMBS issued through the Sequoia RMBS platform as
part of the Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2006-1 securitization transaction
contained untrue and misleading statements and material representations in
violation of Illinois Securities Law (815 ILCS Sections 5/12(F)-(H)) and
North Carolina Securities Law (N.C.G.S.A. ?78A-8(2) & ?78A-56(a)) and also
alleges a claim of negligent misrepresentations under Illinois common law. On
some of the causes of action, the FHLB-Chicago seeks to rescind the purchase
of these RMBS and to collect interest on the original purchase price at the
statutory interest rate of 10% per annum from the date of original purchase
(net of interest received). On one cause of action, the FHLB-Chicago seeks
unspecified damages. The FHLB-Chicago also seeks attorneys' fees and costs.
Among other things, the FHLB-Chicago alleges that the offering materials for
this RMBS contained materially untrue statements or omissions regarding this
RMBS and the loans securitized in this transaction, including untrue
statements or omissions regarding the (1) loan-to-value ratios of these
mortgage loans and the appraisals of the properties that secured these
mortgage loans, (2) occupancy status of those properties, (3) underwriting
standards of the originators of these mortgage loans, (4) ratings assigned to
these RMBS, and (5) due diligence performed on these mortgage loans. On March
27, 2011, the FHLB-Chicago Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint,
which motions are now pending. Redwood Trust, Inc. and the depositor believe
that this case is without merit, and intend to defend the action vigorously.
In connection with the issuance of the Sequoia RMBS that is the subject of
the FHLB-Chicago's claim, Redwood Trust, Inc., the sponsor, and the depositor
agreed to indemnify the underwriters of these RMBS for certain losses and
expenses they might incur as a result of claims made against them relating to
these RMBS, including, without limitation, certain legal expenses. Regardless
of the outcome of this litigation, Redwood Trust, Inc., the sponsor, and the
depositor could incur a loss as a result of these indemnities.

The business of the sponsor, the depositor, the seller and their affiliates
has included, and continues to include, activities relating to the
acquisition and securitization of residential mortgage loans. In addition,
the business of the sponsor has, in the past, included activities relating to
the acquisition and securitization of debt obligations and other assets
through the issuance of collateralized debt obligations (commonly referred to
as CDO transactions). Because of their involvement in the securitization and
CDO businesses, the sponsor, the depositor, the seller and their affiliates
could become the subject of litigation relating to these businesses,
including additional litigation of the type described above, and could also
become the subject of governmental investigations, enforcement actions, or
lawsuits and governmental authorities could allege that these entities
violated applicable law or regulation in the conduct of their business.

In fact, the sponsor and its affiliates have received, and responded to,
information requests and subpoenas from two governmental authorities (one by
the SEC relating to the sponsor?s CDO business and one by the National Credit
Union Administration relating to a residential mortgage securitization
conducted by the sponsor and the depositor). It is possible that the sponsor,
the depositor, the seller or their affiliates might not be successful in
defending or responding to any litigation, governmental investigation or
related action and any losses incurred as a result of the resolution of any
such action or investigation could have a material adverse effect on the
sponsor, the depositor, the seller or their affiliates. In any case,
regardless of the merits of any allegation or legal action that may be
brought against the sponsor, the depositor, the seller or their affiliates,
or of their success in defending against such allegations or legal actions,
the costs of defending against any such allegation or legal action may be
significant or material and could have a material adverse effect on the
sponsor, the depositor, the seller or their affiliates.


Item 1119 of Regulation AB, Affiliations and Certain Relationships and Related
Transactions.

The seller and sponsor and the depositor are both wholly-owned subsidiaries of
Redwood Trust, Inc.   Citigroup Global Markets Inc., an underwriter, is an
affiliate of CitiMortgage, Inc., the originator and servicer of the mortgage
loans.

There is not currently, and there was not during the past two years, any
material business relationship, agreement, arrangement, transaction or
understanding that is or was entered into outside the ordinary course of
business or is or was on terms other than would be obtained in an arm's length
transaction with an unrelated third party, between (a) any of the seller, the
sponsor, the depositor and the issuing entity on the one hand and (b) any of
the servicer, the custodian, the trustee or the originator of the mortgage
loans on the other hand.



Item 1122 of Regulation AB, Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria.

The reports on assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and the related attestation reports on such assessments
of compliance are attached hereto under Item 15.

The following material instance of non-compliance has been disclosed by
CitiMortgage, Inc.:

1. Material instances of noncompliance by the Servicer.

Regulation AB Item - 1122(d)(4)(vii) - In certain instances, the Servicer has
not obtained proper documentation as required by the transaction documents
and internal policies with respect to loss mitigation and recovery
activities.

2. Servicer's commentary regarding material instances of noncompliance.

Beginning in the fall of 2009, Citi took a series of steps to strengthen its
practices and add additional resources to ensure foreclosures were being
processed correctly. As part of these improvements, Citi centralized its
foreclosure operations into one unit, added staff and enhanced training for
greater efficiency and control, and began to require annual certification of
its employees' understanding of the proper procedures. Also, managers were
made accountable for regularly reviewing files to make certain that employees
comply with the procedures. These improvements were fully implemented in
February of 2010. Under Citi's existing procedures, affidavits are prepared
by outside counsel to ensure compliance with each state's foreclosure laws,
and each package is reviewed by a Citi employee who now verifies the
information and signs the foreclosure affidavit in the presence of a notary
except where state law requires or other limited circumstances dictate that
an affidavit be executed by foreclosure counsel. When errors are found, the
documents are returned to the attorney, who revises the package and resubmits
the documents for review. Foreclosures are monitored to make certain that
staffing is adequate to review the affidavits properly. The changes and
safeguards implemented during the fall of 2009 and 2010 give Citi confidence
that there are no systemic issues in its existing foreclosure processes. To
date, Citi's review of foreclosure affidavits with respect to whether the
affiant had personal knowledge and the affidavit had been properly notarized
has not identified cases where Citi foreclosed on a property in error.

In April 2011, the Federal Reserve Board and the Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency issued Consent Orders to fourteen banks and bank holding
companies including Citigroup, Inc. and Citibank, NA due, in part, to certain
of the matters described above. The Consent Orders required certain actions
to be taken by Citi during 2011. Citi believes it has complied with all
aspects of the Consent Orders as of December 31, 2011. In addition, on
February 9, 2012, CitiMortgage, Inc. entered into an agreement in principle
with the United States and state attorneys general relating to these matters
which, among other things, requires additional improved mortgage servicing
standards including heightened controls around loss mitigation activities.

The following material instance of non-compliance has been disclosed by Wells
Fargo, National Association:

Material Instances of Noncompliance by the Company

Management's assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria
set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item
1122 of Regulation AB as of December 31, 2011 and for the Period, disclosed
that material noncompliance occurred with servicing criteria 1122(d)(3)(i)(B)
and 1122(d)(3)(ii), as fol1ows:

* With respect to servicing criterion 1122(d)(3)(i)(B), certain reports to
  investors did not provide information calculated in accordance with the terms
  specified in the transaction agreements.

* With respect to servicing criterion 1122(d)(3)(ii), certain amounts due to
  investors were not allocated and remitted in accordance with timeframes,
  distribution priority and other terms set forth in the transaction agreements.

Management's Discussion on Material Instances of Noncompliance by the Company

Disclosure: During the Period, (i) certain amounts allocated and remitted to
investors were not calculated in accordance with the terms specified in the
transaction agreements, and (ii) certain reports to investors did not provide
information calculated in accordance with the terms specified in the
transaction agreements with respect to waterfall calculations and/or reporting
disclosures. As part of its assessment of compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria, Management identified that in certain instances the
material noncompliance reported in Schedule A hereto was attributable to errors
in the models impacting payments to investors and reporting disclosures,
including those for a subset of RMBS transactions in the Platform that contain
multi-group features, herein referred to as "Subject Transactions". As
Management has determined the modeling errors for Subject Transactions to be
the most significant issue resulting in material instances of noncompliance,
Management's analysis of this issue's impact on the Platform for the Period is
described below in the "Scope".

Scope: Management reviewed all of the distributions to investors during the
Period for the Subject Transactions and all of the models used to prepare
reports to investors for the Subject Transactions and determined that (i) the
total dollar amount of payment errors in excess of $5,000 for any particular
distribution during the Period when aggregating the payment errors for each
affected CUSIP, herein referred to as "Disclosed Errors", for the Subject
Transactions represented approximately one one-thousandth of one percent
(.001%) of the total dollar amount allocated and remitted to investors in all
transactions across the Platform during the Period, (ii) the tranches with
payment errors above $200 for the Subject Transactions with Disclosed Errors
comprised less than one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) of the number of tranches in
the Platform as of December 31, 2011, (iii) there were 17 Subject Transactions
with Disclosed Errors comprising less than one percent (1%) of the total number
of transactions in the Platform as of December 31, 2011, and (iv) 340 of the
Subject Transactions, including those transactions with Disclosed Errors,
required model revisions.

Remediation: For each of the instances of material noncompliance identified by
Management, including Subject Transactions, adjustments have been made to the
waterfall models, as applicable so that the models, in all material respects,
are expected to prepare the investor reports in accordance with the terms
specified in the transaction agreements. Revisions also have been made so that
the investor reports associated with the instances of material noncompliance
are expected to provide information that is, in all material respects,
calculated in accordance with the terms specified in the transaction
agreements.



Item 1123 of Regulation AB, Servicer Compliance Statement.

The servicer compliance statements are attached hereto under Item 15.



                               Part IV

  Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules.

  (a) Exhibits.

  (31) Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

  (33) Reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
  asset-backed securities.


    <TABLE>
    
      <c>

    33.1 CitiMortgage, Inc. as Servicer
    33.2 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee
    33.3 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Custodian

    </TABLE>


  (34) Attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
  for asset-backed securities.


    <TABLE>
    
      <c>

    34.1 CitiMortgage, Inc. as Servicer
    34.2 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee
    34.3 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Custodian

    </TABLE>


   (35) Servicer compliance statement.


    <TABLE>
    
       <c>

    35.1 CitiMortgage, Inc. as Servicer
    35.2 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee

    </TABLE>


   (b) Not applicable.

   (c) Omitted.



                          SIGNATURES


  Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
  Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be
  signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


   Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc.
   (Depositor)


   /s/ John Isbrandtsen
   John Isbrandtsen, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
   (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)


    Date:   March 5, 2012



  Exhibit Index

  Exhibit No.


   (31) Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

   (33) Reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
   asset-backed securities.


    <TABLE>

    
      <c>
    33.1 CitiMortgage, Inc. as Servicer
    33.2 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee
    33.3 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Custodian

    </TABLE>

   (34) Attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
   criteria for asset-backed securities.


    <TABLE>

    
      <c>
    34.1 CitiMortgage, Inc. as Servicer
    34.2 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee
    34.3 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Custodian

    </TABLE>

   (35) Servicer compliance statement.


    <TABLE>

    
       <c>
    35.1 CitiMortgage, Inc. as Servicer
    35.2 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee

    </TABLE>