UNITED
      STATES


SECURITIES
      AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington,
      D.C. 20549







ANNUAL
      REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
      1934


For
      the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007




GOLDEN
      VALLEY DEVELOPMENT, INC.


a
      Nevada
      corporation





1200
      Truxton Avenue  #130


Bakersfield,
      CA  93301


(661)
      327-0067





Common
      Stock, $0.001 par value registered under Section 12(g) of The Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934





I.R.S.
      Employer I.D. # 84-1658720







Check
      whether the issuer (1) filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13
      or
      15(d) of the Exchange Act during the past 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___No X





Check
      if
      there is no disclosure of delinquent filers in response to Item 405 of
      Regulation S-B contained in this form, and no disclosure will 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-KSB or any
      amendment thereto.X





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








Revenues
      for our most recent fiscal year:   $14,533





Number
      of shares outstanding of our only class of common equity, as of March 5,
      2008: 42,400,000





Transitional
      Small Business Disclosure Format (check one): Yes ___; No X


-1-


TABLE
      OF
      CONTENTS




PART
                IItem
                1.                      
                BusinessItem
                1A.                  
                Risk FactorsItem
                2.                      
                PropertiesItem
                3.                      
                Legal ProceedingsItem
                4.                      
                Submissions of Matters to a Vote of Security HoldersPART
                IIItem
                5.                      
                Market for Registrant’s Common Equity and Related Stockholder
                MattersItem
                6.                      
                Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
                OperationsItem
                7.                      
                Financial StatementsItem
                8.                      
                Changes In and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial
                DisclosuresItem
                8A.                    Controls
                and ProceduresPART
                IIIItem
                9.                      
                Directors and Executive Officers, Promoters and Control Persons,
                ComplianceWith
                Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act of the RegistrantItem
                10.                     Executive
                CompensationItem
                11.                     Security
                Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and ManagementItem
                12.                     Certain
                Relationships and Related TransactionsItem
                13.                     Exhibits,
                Financial Statements, Schedules and Reports on Form
                8-KItem
                14.                     Principal
                Accountants Fees and ServicesSignatures


-2-


Part
      I




Item
      1.  Description of Business.





History
      and
      Structure.                                          
We were incorporated in July of 2004 as Golden Valley Development, Inc.
      in the
      state of Nevada. From the date of incorporation to August of 2004, we were
      a
      wholly-owned subsidiary of Fresh Veg Broker.com, Inc., a Nevada corporation.
      Then, in August of 2004, we were spun off from Fresh Veg, and in that process
      the shares held by Fresh Veg were distributed to its own shareholders on a
      pro
      rata basis, making our shareholder base exactly the same as Fresh Veg’s
      shareholder base.




The
      business purpose of the spin-off was to separate three distinct, disparate
      business plans so that different, separate entities could focus on each business
      plan. Prior to the spin-off, there was a parent company – Fresh Veg – and two
      subsidiaries. We were one of the two subsidiaries. Our business plan is for
      a
      brokerage firm that specializes in buying commodities such as fresh fruits,
      vegetables and hay and re-selling them, as we describe below. The business
      plan
      belonging to the other former subsidiary of Fresh Veg, Pebble Beach Enterprises,
      was for the development and re-sale of real estate. Our then-parent company
      had
      planned on acquiring a third subsidiary which had certain technologies designed
      to assist medical insurance companies in securely receiving hospital data.
      Therefore, it was determined that three business plans – each requiring vastly
      different types of energy, talent and resources to operate – was too dispersing
      to be operated by one conglomerate, and so the two subsidiaries, Pebble Beach
      and Golden Valley, were spun off.




Subsequent
      to our being spun off from Fresh Veg, Fresh Veg changed its name to Tiger Team
      Technologies, Inc. officially on August 16, 2004, in order to better reflect
      the
      change in its business from a vegetable broker business – which is the business
      we inherited – to a company that dealt with certain technologies designed to
      assist medical insurance companies in securely receiving hospital
      data.




What
      We
      Do.                               
We are a brokerage firm that specializes in buying commodities such
      as fresh
      fruits and vegetables and hay in California’s central valley from local farmers
      and then selling the products to buyers, such as supermarkets, wholesalers,
      and
      other farmers, also located in California.




We
      operate as a broker, someone who acts as the agent for the farmer in negotiating
      a contract between seller and buyer. The brokerage fee is generally collected
      from the seller. We earn our fee by arranging the transaction through written
      or
      phone communication and bringing the two parties together with a confirmation
      of
      sale.  Our management team has over 25 years of combined brokerage
      experience in the produce industry, including the last year and a half with
      Golden Valley. Our expertise ranges from contract negotiation and product
      research to innovative business development.




Our
      business model begins with various buyers in need of produce, such as
      supermarkets and wholesalers, who buy on behalf of restaurants, restaurant
      chains and other large institutions; or in need of hay for animal feed. These
      buyers place their orders with us. After receiving an order from a buyer we
      prepare a quote. At that point, we check to see if we have any other pending
      orders for the same commodity that has not been purchased yet. If we do, we
      try
      to purchase a larger quantity from the farmer, and negotiate a lower price
      for
      buying at a bulk rate, which lowers our base cost and increases our
      profit.




We
      find
      the farmers who have the desired produce or hay, and then put in the order
      to
      the farmer. Before the goods are shipped from the farmer to the buyer, we send
      out our inspector to inspect them, to guarantee high level of quality and
      minimize disputes over damaged goods. Our inspectors, currently only Art and
      Annette Davis, do not allow damaged goods to ship. This way the customers know
      that they are receiving quality products with every order placed. If a customer
      receives damaged goods, we know that the damage occurred en route and the
      transportation company is responsible for the damage. We strive to ensure that
      all products are of the highest quality. In inspecting commodities, we use
      the
      USDA standards, the only broadly recognized quality standards in our industry,
      and due to Art and Annette Davis’s experience with similar ventures in the past,
      we will be able to train and test future inspectors in-house to follow these
      standards.


-3-




Competition.                              
      Our main competitors are mostly individual brokers with small offices and few
      or
      no employees. Varsity Produce and Manny Lawrence are the largest competitors
      to
      our knowledge.




The
      main
      competitive factor in our industry, however, does not come from other brokers,
      but from the changing nature of the industry. As farms become larger, they
      become more able to offer the same type of discounts to buyers that we can.
      Our
      advantage remains that we inspect all produce before it ships, and so ensure
      high quality produce, which is also an advantage over our competitors who,
      in
      the experience of Art and Annette Davis, have never inspected the produce being
      shipped or even were physically present during any part of the shipping process;
      however, our challenge is always to find more small, “niche” farmers and more
“niche” buyers, such as for organic produce, unusual produce, hay and other
      niches.




In
      the
      experience of our management, customers usually pick up the produce from the
      seller with their own trucks.  When necessary, however, we will have
      the capability to coordinate transportation for buyers.  We are allied
      with Freymiller Trucking through verbal, informal agreements between our
      management and theirs, whose trucks, because of our alliance, can be contracted
      out at any time. Having access to such a broad transportation network allows
      us
      to offer reasonable transportation rates and still generate a profit. Since
      we
      are able to handle all of our clients’ shipping needs, there is more incentive
      for companies to buy goods from us rather than our competitors, providing
      another competitive advantage.




Regulation.                               
      Golden Valley has no involvement in the farming process. Therefore we do not
      need to conform to any environmental standards. When we supply transportation
      for the goods to be delivered, we contract out with trucking companies and
      it is
      ultimately the responsibility of the transportation company to make sure that
      all environmental laws in regards to transporting commodities are adhered to
      and
      followed.




Because
      we currently operate exclusively intra-state, we are not subject to federal
      agricultural regulations as a broker; specifically we are not covered under
      the
      United States Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, abbreviated as “PACA”.
      However, as we expand into interstate deals, we would need to receive a license
      from the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a “broker”, defined by PACA in part
      as:“any
      person engaged in the business of negotiating sales and purchases of any
      perishable agricultural commodity in interstate or foreign commerce for or
      on
      behalf of the vendor or the purchaser, respectively...”. Receiving the license
      entails filling out a relatively simple application and paying a $550 annual
      fee. Licenses are granted fairly automatically unless the applicant has had
      a
      license revoked in the past or been otherwise found in violation of PACA or
      its
      regulations in the past. Maintaining a license would principally involve making
      sure we pay our farmers on time. If we are late in paying farmers, our license
      may be suspended by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Since our business
      model
      includes the receipt of monies from the buyer before the farmers deliver the
      product, it is very unlikely we would have trouble maintaining our
      license.




Suppliers
      and
      Customers.                                      California’s
      central valley services 70 percent of the nation’s produce and vegetables, and
      has hundreds of suppliers, i.e. farmers and sheds, and therefore sources and
      availability of the produce is good. Some of the small- and mid-size farmers
      who
      are most suited as suppliers in our business model include Gerowan Farms, HMC
      Farms, Bolthouse Farms, Grimway Farms and Giumarra Vineyards.




We
      have
      no major customers yet; our three customers so far have been ERE Sheep Company,
      M&E Farms and Diamond Cattle Company. However, major customers that have
      transacted business with Art and/or Annette Davis – our management team – in the
      past include Tops Supermarkets, Bi-Lo Supermarkets and Giant Foods.


-4-




Research
      and
      Development.                                     We
      spent no money on research and development in the last two and a half years,
      relying instead on the experience of our management team, Art and Annette Davis,
      to make any amendments to our business or marketing plans.




Employees.                               
      We have no formal employees. Instead, our two management personnel – Art and
      Annette Davis – each dedicate 5-20 hours per week to conduct the business and
      prepare all requisite administration, including this filing.




Item
      1A. Risk factors





Fluctuations
      in our operating results on a quarterly and annual basis could cause the market
      price of our common stock to decline.




Our
      revenue and operating results have fluctuated significantly from period to
      period in the past and are likely to do so in the future. These fluctuations
      could cause the market price of our common stock to decline.




If
      our internal control over financial reporting does not comply with the
      requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, investor perceptions of our company
      may
      be adversely affected and could cause a decline in the market price of our
      stock.




Section 404
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires our management to report on the
      effectiveness of our internal control structure and procedures for financial
      reporting. We have an ongoing program to perform the system and process
      evaluation and testing necessary to comply with these requirements. We have
      incurred and expect to continue to incur significant expense and to devote
      significant management resources to Section 404 compliance. In the event
      that our chief executive officer, chief financial officer, or chief accounting
      officer, determine that our internal control over financial reporting is not
      effective as defined under Section 404, investor perceptions of our company
      may be adversely affected and could cause a decline in the market price of
      our
      stock




We
      may experience a decrease in market demand or a supply disruption due to
      uncertain economic conditions in the United States market, including as a result
      of the concerns of terrorism, war and social and political
      instability.




Terrorist
      attacks in the United States and elsewhere, the continued presence of United
      States military forces in Iraq, and turmoil in the Middle East have contributed
      to the uncertainty in the United States and global economy and may lead to
      a
      decline in economic conditions, both domestically and
      internationally.




Our
      ability to raise capital in the future may be limited and our failure to raise
      capital when needed could prevent us from executing our growth
      strategy.




We
      believe that our existing cash will be sufficient for the next 12 months however
      there is no guarantee that in the future that we will be able to raise capital
      when needed.




-5-


Item
      2.  Description of Property.




Our
      principal office is a rented space in a dedicated office building at 1200
      Truxton Ave., Suite 130 in Bakersfield, California.




We
      do not
      own any real estate or other property, nor do we invest in real
      estate.




Item
      3.  Legal Proceedings.




We
      are
      not a party of any pending or existing legal proceedings, nor the subject of
      any
      governmental proceedings.




Item
      4.  Submissions of Matters to a Vote of Security
      Holders.




None




Item
      5.  Market for Registrant’s Common Equity and Related
      Stockholder Matters




The
      common stock is not currently traded


-6-




Part
      II




Item
      6.  Management’s Discussion and
      Analysis





SAFE
      HARBOR FOR FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS




The
      following discussion and analysis contains certain statements that may be deemed
      “forward-looking statements”. All statements, other than statements of
      historical fact, that address events or developments that we expect to occur,
      are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements that
      are not historical facts and are generally, but not always, identified by the
      words “expects”, “plans”, “anticipates”, “believes”, “intends”, “estimates”,
“projects”, “potential” and similar expressions, or that events or conditions
“will”, “would”, “may”, “could” or “should” occur.




Although
      we believe the expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements are
      based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future
      performance and actual results may differ materially from those in the
      forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause the actual results to
      differ materially from those in forward-looking statements include: failure
      to
      successfully negotiate or subsequently close such transactions, inability to
      obtain required shareholder or regulatory approvals, and general economic,
      market or business conditions. Investors are cautioned that any such statements
      are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments
      may
      differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements.
      Forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs, estimates and opinions
      of
      management on the date the statements are made. We undertake no obligation
      to
      update these forward-looking statements in the event that managements beliefs,
      estimates or opinions, or other factors, should change. ’




Liquidity
      and Cash
      Requirements.                                         Adavco
      Inc., a corporation owned jointly by Art and Annette Davis, loaned us $50,000
      in
      October of 2004 to satisfy cash requirements, including accounting and auditing
      costs, for our first 36 months – through October of 2007. In addition, Adavco
      has provided temporary funding to support certain broker transactions.
      Additional funding may be available to us from Adavco; however, based on our
      current cash forecasts, we do not expect to borrow additional funds, except
      as
      may be needed on a short-term basis to support a broker transaction. Our
      projected cash requirements over the next twelve months should not exceed
      $15,000. However, our cash requirements will increase significantly if we begin
      any advertising campaigns, as discussed below in our Marketing subsection.
      As of
      December 31, 2007, our cash on hand was $13,200.





Results
      of
      operations.                                          
In 2007, we brokered 8 transactions, primarily related to cattle and
      other
      agricultural products, and recorded net revenues of $14,533. We incurred general
      and administrative expenses of $38,950, primarily related to accounting fees
      and
      rent expense. In addition, we incurred $3,629 of interest expense.





For
      the
      year we saw an increase in revenues as compared to 2006. We also increased
      our
      commission fee from 1% to 3% on all transactions and feel that this will lead
      to
      increased revenues for the company.  We  will continue with
      our strategic plan of servicing our current set of customers as well as working
      to obtain new ones.





Industry
      Trends.                                          
As local farms consolidate, they become better able to negotiate sales
      directly
      with the buyers. Our primary customer is the smaller, “niche” farmers who do not
      have direct access to buyers. These niche farms typically produce crops such
      as
      alfalfa hay or grass hay, organic produce, and unusual or specialty commodities.
      However, there are still opportunities for us to work with larger farms and
      larger buyers on occasion, because we still retain the advantage of quality
      control. As we mention above, we send out a field inspector to make sure all
      the
      produce loaded onto the trucks is high quality, which is something the buyers
      do
      not do themselves, nor do the farmers, nor do our competitors. In this way,
      we
      still are able to generate enough business to continue as a going
      concern.


-7-





Generation
      of
      revenues.                                     We
      act as a broker between farms and wholesale buyers. In some cases, we broker
      products between two farms. For example, we may purchase alfalfa hay from one
      farm and sell it to a cattle farm. We generate net revenue form the margin
      between selling price and the buying price.





Marketing.                                  
      Our company is local and will rely on our reputation and word-of-mouth to
      generate most of our customers. As mentioned above, we maintain a competitive
      advantage by thoroughly inspecting the product prior to shipment. Our management
      has historically found that happy customers are the best form of advertising.
      However, in conjunction with word-of-mouth marketing, we also plan to expand
      our
      advertising to various produce industry publications. We also will direct-mail
      to address lists endemic to our industry.





Our
      management team, Art and Annette Davis, has formed many partnerships, alliances
      and contacts while operating as produce brokers for the past 25 years. These
      business relationships provide an enormous base of resources from which we
      can
      operate.  Most of our brokerage deals will start – as they have with
      our one transaction we have completed so far - with our management team’s large
      client base that we hope will contract with us to locate, purchase and deliver
      various commodities for them.




Potential
      Future Business
      Models.                                     Additionally,
      we are currently researching the viability of farming certain commodities
      ourselves in order to lower the cost of goods sold and improve our profit
      margin. Whatever excess product was grown could be sold to the various competing
      brokers. By controlling the product, we can effectively control the quality
      of
      product that other brokers are able to supply. There is currently no precise
      plan in place and there can be no assurances that any such plan will be
      implemented.




Another
      option is to purchase the farmland outright and lease it back to the various
      farmers. By controlling the farmers you can demand the best product for the
      lowest price. This business model is possible with another loan from Adavco,
      which is controlled by our management team. We would feel ready for this model
      once we have completed several more transactions under our current model this
      year, and determined how much time and effort will be required to keep our
      current model viable.




Another
      profitable means of expansion we are exploring is to continue hiring brokers
      with established customer bases, who can promote the benefits of doing business
      with Golden Valley. The new hires would stay employed with Golden Valley as
      long
      as they can continually solicit new customers. The more customers these brokers
      bring Golden Valley, the higher their salaries and bonuses. We anticipate hiring
      one produce broker per year, beginning this year, to allow for reasonable
      expansion.




In
      late
      December, 2007, Golden Valley management began drawing up future plans for
      separating out the cattle business versus all the other commodities that it
      brokers and incorporated a wholly-owned subsidiary. Central Valley Commodity
      Brokers Inc. is the vehicle for which that business plan could be
      perused.




Management
      felt that the potential market for cattle is so great that a more targeted
      website and marketing material is absolutely essential to growing the
      business.  The goal is to clearly separate the two business with
      Central Valley Focusing on brokering cattle and Golden Valley focusing on
      brokering all other commodities.  Management felt that the easiest way
      to do this was to have two separate entities.  Management was
      concerned that as the cattle business started to grow that potential clients
      would view Golden Valley as primarily a hay broker and not be taken seriously
      as
      a cattle broker. Management felt that potential cattle clients want to feel
      like
      they are doing business with an expert in the cattle business and not just
      some
      company that broker a little bit of everything. Management has come to realize
      that brokering cattle is a somewhat tight community and to truly be taken
      serious the business needs to be separated out.  Currently there is no
      business activity in Central Valley Commodity Brokers Inc.




With
      a
      separate subsidiary, Central Valley Commodity Brokers can focus solely on
      growing the cattle brokering business.  The goal would be to expand on
      the current business contacts that have been formed over the last couple of
      years.  With the subsidiary in place management feels that it will be
      able to accurately capitalize on all future potential
      opportunities.


-8-


Item
      7.  Financial Statements.


REPORT
        OF
        INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 To
        the
        Board Directors
 Golden
        Valley Development, Inc.
 Bakersfield,
        California
 
 We
        have
        audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Golden Valley
        Development, Inc. as of December 31, 2007 and the related consolidated
        statements of operations, shareholders’ deficit, and cash flows for the years
        ended December 31, 2007 and 2006. These consolidated financial statements
        are
        the responsibility of Golden Valley Development, Inc.'s management. Our
        responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial
        statements based on our audit.
 
 We
        conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
        Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that
        we plan
        and perform an audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the
        consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement. Golden
        Valley is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit
        of its
        internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration
        of
        internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit
        procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose
        of
        expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of Golden Valley’s internal control
        over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit
        also
        includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
        disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles
        used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating
        the
        overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide
        a
        reasonable basis for our opinion.
 
 In
        our
        opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present
        fairly,
        in all material respects, the financial position of Golden Valley Development,
        Inc. as of December 31, 2007 and the results of operations and cash flows
        for
        the two years then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally
        accepted in the United States of America.
 
 The
        accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming
        that
        Golden Valley Development, Inc. will continue as a going concern. As discussed
        in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, Golden Valley Development,
        Inc. suffered recurring losses from operations and has a working capital
        deficiency, which raises substantial doubt about its ability to continue
        as a
        going concern. Management’s plans regarding those matters also are described in
        Note 2. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments
        that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.
 
 
 Malone
        & Bailey, P.C.
 www.malone-bailey.com
 Houston,
        TX
 March
        5,
        2008
 
 -9-
 GOLDEN
        VALLEY DEVELOPMENT, INC.
 CONSOLIDATED
        BALANCE SHEET
 December
        31, 2007
 
 
 
 
 ASSETSCash
              
              $
              13,200Total
                  current
                  assets
              
              $
              13,200LIABILITIES
                  & STOCKHOLDERS’ DEFICITLIABILITIESAccrued
                  Interest
              
              $
              1,342Note
                  payable to related party
              
              
              50,000Total
                  liabilities
              
              
              51,342STOCKHOLDERS’
                  DEFICITCommon
                  stock, $.001 par value, 75,000,000 sharesauthorized,
                  42,400,000 shares issued and outstanding
              
              
              42,400Additional
                  paid-in capital
              
              
              (15,166
              )Accumulated
                  deficit
              
              
              (65,376
              )TOTAL
                  STOCKHOLDERS’ DEFICIT
              
              
              (38,142
              )TOTAL
                  LIABILITIES & STOCKHOLDERS’ DEFICIT
              
              $
              13,200
 
  
 See
        summary of significant accounting
 policies
        and notes to financial statements.
 -10-
 GOLDEN
        VALLEY DEVELOPMENT, INC.
 CONSOLIDATED
        STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
 Years
        Ended December 31, 2007 and 2006
 
 2007
              
              
              2006Revenue
              
              $
              14,533
              
              
              $
              5,058General
                  &Administrative
                  expenses
              
              
              38,950
              
              
              
              27,158Interest
                  expense
              
              
              3,629
              
              
              
              3,514Total
                  expenses
              
              
              (42,579
              )
              
              
              (30,672
              )Net
                  Loss
              
              $
              (28,046
              )
              
              $
              (25,614
              )Basic
                  and diluted netloss
                  per share
              
              $
              (0.00
              )
              
              $
              (0.00
              )Weighted
                  averageshares
                  outstanding
              
              
              41,000,000
              
              
              
              40,000,000
  See
        summary of significant accounting
 policies
        and notes to financial statements.
 -11-
 GOLDEN
        VALLEY DEVELOPMENT, INC.
 CONSOLIDATED
        STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN
        STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
 Years
        Ended December 31, 2007 and
        2006
 
 
 
 
 AdditionalCommon
                  Stock
              
              
              Paid-in
              
              
              RetainedShares
              
              
              $
              
              
              Capital
              
              
              Earnings
              
              
              TotalsBalances,December
                  31, 2005
              
              
              40,000,000
              
              
              $
              40,000
              
              
              $
              (33,399
              )
              
              $
              (11,716
              )
              
              $
              (5,115
              )Contributions
                  of:-forgiveness
                  ofaccrued
                  interest
              
              
              -
              
              
              
              -
              
              
              
              3,121
              
              
              
              -
              
              
              
              3,121-rent
                  expense
              
              
              -
              
              
              
              -
              
              
              
              4,660
              
              
              
              -
              
              
              
              4,660-imputed
                  interest
              
              
              -
              
              
              
              -
              
              
              
              3,509
              
              
              
              -
              
              
              
              3,509Net
                  loss
              
              
              -
              
              
              
              -
              
              
              
              -
              
              
              
              (25,614
              )
              
              
              (25,614
              )Balances,December
                  31, 2006
              
              
              40,000,000
              
              
              
              40,000
              
              
              
              (22,109
              )
              
              
              (37,330
              )
              
              
              (19,439
              )Contributions
                  of:-rent
                  expense
              
              
              -
              
              
              
              -
              
              
              
              4,658
              
              
              
              -
              
              
              
              4,658-imputed
                  interest
              
              
              -
              
              
              
              -
              
              
              
              2,285
              
              
              
              -
              
              
              
              2,285Shares
                  issuedfor
                  services
              
              
              2,400,000
              
              
              
              2,400
              
              
              
              -
              
              
              
              -
              
              
              
              2,400Net
                  loss
              
              
              -
              
              
              
              -
              
              
              
              -
              
              
              
              (28,046
              )
              
              
              (28,046
              )42,400,000
              
              
              $
              42,400
              
              
              $
              (15,166
              )
              
              $
              (65,376
              )
              
              $
              (38,142
              )
 
 See
        summary of significant accounting
 policies
        and notes to financial statements.
 -12-
 GOLDEN
        VALLEY DEVELOPMENT, INC.
 CONSOLIDATED
        STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
 Years
        Ended December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006
 
 2007
              
              
              2006CASH
                  FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIESNet
                  loss
              
              $
              (28,046
              )
              
              $
              (25,614
              )Adjustments
                  to reconcile net lossto
                  cash used in operating
                  activities:Imputed
                  rent and interest
                  expense
              
              
              6,943
              
              
              
              11,290Stock
                  issued for
                  services
              
              
              2,400
              
              
              
              -Changes
                  in:Prepaid
                  and other current
                  assets
              
              
              1,180
              
              
              
              1,200Accrued expenses
              
              
              1,342
              
              
              
              (3,121
              )NET
                  CASH USED IN OPERATING ACTIVITIES
              
              
              (16,181
              )
              
              
              (16,245
              )NET
                  FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIESProceeds
                  from loan from related party
              
              
              644,650
              
              
              
              60,000Payments
                  on loan from related party
              
              
              (704,650
              )
              
              
              -NET
                  CASH PROVIDED BY FINANCING ACTIVITIES
              
              
              (60,000
              )
              
              
              60,000NET
                  CHANGE IN CASH
              
              
              (76,181
              )
              
              
              43,755Cash
                  balance, beginning of the
                  period
              
              
              89,381
              
              
              
              45,626Cash
                  balance, ending of the period
              
              $
              13,200
              
              
              $
              89,381Supplemental
                  disclosures:Taxes
                  paid
              
              $
              -
              
              
              $
              -Interest
                  paid
              
              
              -
              
              
              
              -
 See
        summary of significant accounting
 policies
        and notes to financial statements.





-13-


Golden
      Valley Development, Inc.


NOTES
      TO
      FINANCIAL STATEMENTS




NOTE
      1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES





Nature
      of
      Business. Golden Valley Development, Inc. (“Golden Valley”) was incorporated in
      Nevada on July 26, 2004. Golden Valley is a commodities broker.  In
      late December, 2007, Golden Valley incorporated a wholly-owned subsidiary,
      Central Valley Commodity Brokers Inc.  The subsidiary had no assets,
      liabilities or operations as of December 31, 2007.




Cash
      and
      Cash Equivalents. For purposes of the statement of cash flows, Golden Valley
      considers all highly liquid investments purchased with an original maturity
      of
      three months or less to be cash equivalents.




Use
      of
      Estimates. In preparing financial statements, management makes estimates and
      assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities in the
      balance sheet and revenue and expenses in the statement of expenses. Actual
      results could differ from those estimates.




Revenue
      Recognition. Golden Valley recognizes revenue when persuasive evidence of an
      arrangement exists, services have been rendered, the sales price is fixed or
      determinable, and collectibility is reasonably assured. Golden Valley performs
      as a broker without assuming the risks and rewards of ownership of the goods,
      therefore sales are reported on a net basis. After receiving an order, Golden
      Valley will locate and inspect the desired item. The item will be shipped
      directly to the customer from the supplier by Golden Valley or the customer
      can
      arrange for pickup at the supplier. The item must meet certain industry
      standards prior to customer acceptance. If the industry standards are not met,
      the loss carries back to the supplier. If the item meets industry standards
      and
      the customer were to reject the item, the loss belongs to the customer. Golden
      Valley recognizes revenues at the time the customer accepts the
      item.




Advertising.
      In accordance with Accounting Standards Executive Committee Statement of
      Position 93-7, costs incurred for producing and communicating advertising of
      Golden Valley are charged to operations as incurred. Advertising expense for
      two
      years ended  December 31, 2007 and 2006 was $0.




Income
      taxes. Golden Valley recognizes deferred tax assets and liabilities based on
      differences between the financial reporting and tax bases of assets and
      liabilities using the enacted tax rates and laws that are expected to be in
      effect when the differences are expected to be recovered. Golden Valley provides
      a valuation allowance for deferred tax assets for which it does not consider
      realization of such assets to be more likely than not.




Basic
      and
      diluted net loss per share calculations are presented in accordance with
      Financial Accounting Standards Statement 128, and are calculated on the basis
      of
      the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the
      year.  They include the dilutive effect of common stock equivalents in
      years with net income.  Basic and diluted loss per share is the same
      due to the absence of common stock equivalents.




Recently
      issued accounting pronouncements.  Golden Valley does not expect the
      adoption of recently issued accounting pronouncements to have a significant
      impact on Golden Valley’s results of operations, financial position or cash
      flow.


-14-




NOTE
      2 – GOING CONCERN




As
      shown
      in the accompanying financial statements, Golden Valley incurred recurring
      net
      losses for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, has an accumulated
      deficit and a working capital deficit as of December 31, 2007.  These
      conditions raise substantial doubt as to Golden Valley’s ability to continue as
      a going concern.  Management is trying to raise additional capital
      through sales of stock.  The financial statements do not include any
      adjustments that might be necessary if Golden Valley is unable to continue
      as a
      going concern.




NOTE
      3 - RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS





On
      October 1, 2004, Golden Valley entered into an unsecured note agreement with
      a
      company controlled by Golden Valley’s majority shareholder. This note, which
      carried no interest rate, was repaid in 2006. Interest was imputed at 5%.
      Accrued interest of $3,121 owed to the related party was forgiven in 2006 and
      accounted for as a contribution to capital.




During
      2006, Golden Valley entered into four similar unsecured notes with the same
      related party. These notes, dated May 14, 2006, May 5, 2006, September 25,
      2006
      and December 26, 2006, were unsecured and carried no interest rate. The
      principal amounts borrowed under these notes were $173,000, $80,000, $50,000
      and
      $60,000, respectively. These loans were primarily used in the operations to
      purchase products. The $173,000 and $80,000 notes were repaid during 2006 from
      the proceeds received in a brokering arrangement and the remaining notes were
      repaid during 2007.




During
      2007, Golden Valley entered into 5 similar notes with the same related party.
      These notes dated January, 12 2007, January 17, 2007, February 2, 2007, June
      11,
      2007, and September 4, 2007 were unsecured and carried an interest rate of
      5%.
      The principal amounts were $7,000, $228,000, $202,850, $166,800 and
      $40,000.  These loans were primarily used in the operations to
      purchase products. The $7,000, $228,000 and $202,850 notes were repaid during
      the year from the proceeds received in a brokering arrangement.  All
      of the notes except for $10,000 of the $166,800 loan and the entire $40,000
      loan
      were repaid in 2007.  The loan interest on the notes for $7,000,
      $228,000, $202,850 was imputed at 5%. The loan interest on the notes for
      $166,800 and $40,000 has an interest rate of 5%




Golden
      Valley is using office space provided by a related party on a rent-free, month
      to month basis. The fair value of the office space is $388 per month. Golden
      Valley had $4,658 and $4,660 of rent expense for the years ended December 31,
      2007 and  2006, respectively. The rent is contributed to capital by a
      related party as a credit to additional paid in capital.




NOTE
      4 - INCOME TAXES




Golden
      Valley uses the liability method, where deferred tax assets and liabilities
      are
      determined based on the expected future tax consequences of temporary
      differences between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for financial
      and income tax reporting purposes.  During fiscal 2007 Golden Valley
      incurred a net loss and, therefore, has no tax liability.  The net
      deferred tax asset generated by the loss carry-forward has been fully
      reserved.  The cumulative net operating loss carry-forward is
      approximately $40,000 at December 31, 2007, and will expire in the year
      2027.


-15-




At
      December 31, 2007, deferred tax assets consisted of the following:




Deferred
                tax assetsNet
                operating
                losses
            
            $
            6,000Less:  valuation
                allowance
            
            
            (6,000
            )Net
                deferred tax
                asset
            
            $
            -





NOTE
      5 - COMMITMENTS




At
      December 31, 2007, Golden Valley had no commitments other than those recorded
      on
      the balance sheet or disclosed in the accompanying notes.




NOTE
      6 – MAJOR CUSTOMERS




All
      2007
      revenues were from 2 customers.




NOTE
      7 – COMMON STOCK




In
      2007,
      Golden Valley issued 2,400,000 shares valued at $2,400 for consulting
      services.


-16-




Item
      8.  Changes In and Disagreements With Accountants on
      Accounting and Financial Disclosure.





There
      have been no changes in or disagreements with our accountants.




Item
      8A.  Controls and Procedures.




Disclosure
      Controls




Management,
      including our President and Treasurer, has evaluated the effectiveness of our
      disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
      and 15d-15(e)) as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based upon
      that evaluation, the President and Treasurer concluded that the disclosure
      controls and procedures were effective to provide reasonable assurance that
      information required to be disclosed in the reports that we file and submit
      under the Exchange Act is (i) recorded, processed, summarized and reported
      as
      and when required and (ii) accumulated and communicated to our management,
      including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer,
      as
      appropriate to allow timely discussions regarding disclosure. In designing
      and
      evaluating the disclosure controls and procedures, management recognized that
      any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can
      provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control objectives,
      and management is required to apply its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit
      relationship of possible controls and procedures.




Management’s
      Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting.





Golden
      Valley’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate
      control over financial reporting for Golden Valley, as such term is defined
      in
      Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Under
      the supervision and with the participation of Golden Valley’s management,
      including our principal executive and principal financial officers, Golden
      Valley conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of its internal control
      over
      financial reporting based on the framework in Internal Control – Integrated
      Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
      Commission (the “COSO Framework”). Based on this evaluation under the COSO
      Framework management concluded that its internal control over financial
      reporting was effective as of December 31, 2007





This
      annual report does not include an attestation report of the company’s registered
      public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting.
      Management’s report was not subject to attestation by the company’s registered
      public accounting firm pursuant to temporary rules of the Securities and
      Exchange Commission that permit the company to provide only management’s report
      in this annual report.


Internal
      Controls


-17-





There
      has
      not been any change in our internal control over financial reporting that has
      materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal
      control over financial reporting.




We
      do not
      expect that internal controls over financial reporting will prevent all errors
      or all instances of fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and
      operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control
      system’s objectives will be met. Further, the design of a control system must
      reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of
      controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent
      limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide
      absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any,
      within its company have been detected. These inherent limitations include the
      realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and that breakdowns
      can occur because of simple error or mistake. Controls can also be circumvented
      by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people,
      or
      by management override of the controls. The design of any system of controls
      is
      based in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events,
      and any design may not succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential
      future conditions. Over time, controls may become inadequate because of changes
      in conditions or deterioration in the degree of compliance with policies or
      procedures. Because of the inherent limitation of a cost-effective control
      system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be
      detected.


-18-




Part
      III




Item
      9.  Directors, Executive Officers, Promoters andControl Persons; Compliance With Section 16(a) of
      the Exchange
      Act.




Annette
      Davis, 53,
      director and treasurer – elected to directorship and office on July 26, 2004 to
      serve for one year; re-elected to both positions on July 26, 2005 for additional
      one-year term.




Ms.
      Davis
      had been CFO of Bakersfield Produce & Distributing, in Bakersfield,
      California, from 1977 until its closure in May, 2002. Bakersfield Produce had
      revenues exceeding $60,000,000 annually. She supervised its accounting
      department, reviewed balance sheets and income statements, approved capital
      expenditures, coordinated with CPAs for audit and tax filings purposes, and
      negotiated contracts with legal departments. Ms. Davis was responsible for
      this
      corporation’s fiscal aspects.




Ms.
      Davis
      had also served as Controller of Andes River Company, LLC, in Bakersfield,
      California, from 1999 until it ceased operations in December of 2003. She held
      the fiscal responsibilities of this company, which imported produce from the
      South American country of Chile and distributed it on the East Coast, with
      revenues of $40 million annually. Ms. Davis was responsible for its income
      and
      balance sheets, accounting department, approved all expenditures and outside
      business, established credit lines for the company, and coordinated with CPAs
      for tax returns in three states.




Ms.
      Davis
      is also currently President of Adavco, Inc., a real estate development company.
      Ms. Davis has been in that position since co-founding Adavco in 1982, and is
      the
      supervisor of accounting for Adavco projects, which include apartment buildings
      and custom homes.




From
      1999-2004, Ms. Davis was also Treasurer of Fresh Veg Broker.com, Inc., our
      former parent company whose business plan, which never was successful, was
      to
      create a website where buyers and sellers of produce could do deals with each
      other online.




Ms.
      Davis
      is also the sole director of Pebble Beach Enterprises, Inc., which is also
      a
      reporting company under The Securities Exchange Act of 1934. She has been its
      director since July of 2004. As we describe above in our Description of Business
      section, Pebble Beach was at one time a subsidiary of our former parent, Fresh
      Veg Broker.com. In that respect, Pebble Beach and Golden Valley were considered
      “sister” companies until both we and Pebble Beach were spun off from Fresh Veg
      in 2004. Pebble Beach has a totally different business plan than we do, but
      Annette Davis serves as director of both companies. She is not an officer of
      Pebble Beach.




Art
      Davis, 56,
      director, president and secretary – elected to directorship and offices on July
      26, 2004 to serve for one year; re-elected to all positions on July 26, 2005
      for
      additional one-year term.




Mr.
      Davis
      had served as Vice-president of Bakersfield Produce & Distributing from 1977
      until it ceased operations in 2002 in Bakersfield, California. The company
      added
      a consolidation point for chain supermarkets in 1979. In 1980, he was
      responsible for bringing in employees to begin a produce brokerage operation.
      The brokerage sales increased so rapidly that the wholesale and consolidations
      divisions were sold and Bakersfield Produce became Bakersfield Produce &
Distributing Company, which grew to become one of the largest produce brokerage
      firms in the United States.


-19-




As
      Vice
      President, he was responsible for buying fresh fruit and vegetables from
      California and Arizona for shipment to several large supermarket chains on
      the
      East coast. Mr. Davis was personally responsible for shipping over 125 loads
      of
      produce per week and dealt with most of the shippers in the produce industry
      due
      to the volume of the business.




Mr.
      Davis
      is also currently Vice-President of Adavco, Inc., a real estate development
      company. Mr. Davis has been in that position since co-founding Adavco in 1982,
      and is a licensed contractor overseeing Adavco projects, which include apartment
      buildings and custom homes.




From
      1999-2004, Mr. Davis was also President of Fresh Veg Broker.com, Inc., our
      former parent company whose business plan, which never was successful, was
      to
      create a website where buyers and sellers of produce could do deals with each
      other online.




Arthur
                Davis is the husband of Annette Davis.


Annette
                Davis is the wife of Arthur Davis.





Neither
      of the directors or executives of Golden Valley, nor any promoter or control
      person, was involved in any bankruptcy or insolvency action, nor was involved
      in
      any business which was involved in any such action at or within 2 years before
      the time of such filing, nor any criminal proceeding nor found to be in
      violation of any securities or futures laws or regulations nor has been barred
      or otherwise enjoined from participating in any type of business, securities
      or
      banking activities.




We
      do not
      have an audit committee financial expert serving on our audit committee, due
      to
      our relatively light revenues and operations and unreasonable expense an audit
      committee financial expert would pose for our business.




Golden
      Valley has adopted a Code of Ethics that applies to our principle executive
      officer (Arthur Davis), principal financial officer (Annette Davis), and
      principal controller (Annette Davis) and has posted it on our website www.goldenvalleydevelopment.com.




We
      undertake to provide to any person without charge, upon request, a copy of
      our
      Code of Ethics. To receive a copy of our Code of Ethics, mail a request for
      such
      to: Golden Valley Development, Inc., P.O. Box 2346, Bakersfield, CA
      93303.




Item
      10.  Executive Compensation.





None
      of
      the officers or directors of Golden Valley is compensated nor has received
      any
      compensation, including any options or stock appreciation rights.




We
      have
      no employee contracts of any kind.


-20-




Item
      11.  Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and
      Management.





We
      have
      no equity compensation plans or other arrangements and had none in the fiscal
      year covered by this Form.




We
      have
      only one class of securities – our Common Stock.




The
      following represents the security ownership of the only person who owns more
      than five percent of our outstanding Common Stock:




Annette
                Davis
            38,054,331
                shares1
            95.1%
                of classc/o
                Golden Valley Development, Inc.
            Direct
                ownership1200
                Truxton Avenue  #130Bakersfield,
                CA  93301The
                following represents the security ownership of all members of
                management:Annette
                Davis
            38,054,331
                shares2
            95.1%
                of classDirector
                and Treasurer
            Direct
                ownershipc/o
                Golden Valley Development, Inc.1200
                Truxton Avenue  #130Bakersfield,
                CA  93301Art
                Davis
            0
                shares3
            0%
                of classDirector,
                President and Secretaryc/o
                Golden Valley Development, Inc.1200
                Truxton Avenue  #130Bakersfield,
                CA  93301





1
          There
          are no shares which the listed beneficial owner has the right to acquire
          within
          sixty days, from options, warrants, rights, conversion privilege or similar
          obligations or instruments.
 2
          There
          are no shares which the listed beneficial owner has the right to acquire
          within
          sixty days, from options, warrants, rights, conversion privilege or similar
          obligations or instruments.
 3
          There
          are no shares which the listed beneficial owner has the right to acquire
          within
          sixty days, from options, warrants, rights, conversion privilege or similar
          obligations or instruments.
  -21-


Item
      12.  Certain Relationships and Related
      Transactions.




On
      October 1, 2004, Golden Valley entered into an unsecured note agreement with
      a
      company controlled by Golden Valley’s majority shareholder. This note, which
      carried no interest rate, was repaid in 2006. Accrued interest of $3,121 owed
      to
      the related party was forgiven in 2006 and accounted for as a contribution
      to
      capital.




During
      2006, Golden Valley entered into four similar unsecured notes with the same
      related party. These notes, dated May 14, 2006, May 5, 2006, September 25,
      2006
      and December 26, 2006, were unsecured and carried no interest rate. The
      principal amounts borrowed under these notes were $173,000, $80,000, $50,000
      and
      $60,000, respectively. These loans were primarily used in the operations to
      purchase products. The $173,000 and $80,000 notes were repaid during 2006 from
      the proceeds received in a brokering arrangement and the remaining notes were
      repaid during 2007.




During
      2007, Golden Valley entered into 5 similar notes with the same related party.
      These notes dated January, 12 2007, January 17, 2007, February 2, 2007, June
      11,
      2007, and September 4, 2007 were unsecured and carried an interest rate of
      5%.
      The principal amounts were $7,000, $228,000, $202,850, $166,800 and
      $40,000.  These loans were primarily used in the operations to
      purchase products. The $7,000, $228,000 and $202,850 notes were repaid during
      the year from the proceeds received in a brokering arrangement.  All
      of the notes except for $10,000 of the $166,800 loan and the entire $40,000
      loan
      were repaid in 2007.  The loan interest on the notes for $7,000,
      $228,000, $202,850 was imputed at 5%. The loan interest on the notes for
      $166,800 and $40,000 has an interest rate of 5%




Golden
      Valley is using office space provided by a related party on a rent-free, month
      to month basis. The fair value of the office space is $388 per month. Golden
      Valley had $4,658 and $4,660 of rent expense for the year ended December 31,
      2007 and 2006 respectively. The rent is contributed to capital by a related
      party as a credit to additional paid in capital.




We
      have
      no parent companies.




The
      names
      of our promoters are as follows:




Fresh
      Veg
      Broker.com, Inc., a Nevada corporation




H.
      Arthur
      Davis




Annette
      Davis







-22-


Item
      13.  Index to Exhibits.


Index
        No.                      
Description




Exhibit
                3.1
            Item
                601(b)(3)(i)
            Articles
                of Incorporation*Exhibit
                3.2
            Item
                601(b)(3)(ii)
            Bylaws*Exhibit
                14
            Item
                601(b)(14)
            Code
                of ethics (attached)Exhibit
                31.1
            Item
                601(b)(31)
            Rule
                13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications (attached)Exhibit
              31.2
            Item
              601(b)(31)
            Rule
              13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications
              (attached)Exhibit
              32.1
            Item
              601(b)(32)
            Section
              1350 (attached)Exhibit
                32.2
            Item
                601(b)(32)
            Section
                1350 (attached)




*
            These
                exhibits are hereby incorporated by reference to our Registration
                Statement on Form 10-SB filed November 29, 2005. File No.
                0-51637.





There
      are
      no management contracts or compensatory plans or arrangements required to be
      filed as an exhibit to this form.





Item
      14.  Principal AccountantFees and
      Services.




Audit
      Fees




Aggregate
      fees billed for fiscal year 2007 and 2006 for professional services rendered
      by
      the principal accountant for the audit of our annual financial statements,
      review of quarterly statements and other services provided in connection with
      statutory or regulatory filings or engagements: $18,000 and $16,746,
      respectively.




Audit-Related
      Fees




Aggregate
      fees billed in fiscal year 2007 and 2006 for assurance and related services
      by
      the principal accountant that are reasonably related to the performance of
      the
      audit or review of our financial statements and are not reported under the
      “Audit Fees” caption above: $0 for both years.


-23-




Tax
      Fees




Aggregate
      fees billed in fiscal year 2007 and 2006 for professional services rendered
      by
      the principal accountant for tax compliance, tax advice and tax planning: $0
      for
      both years.




All
      Other Fees




Aggregate
      fees billed in fiscal year 2007 and 2006 for products and services provided
      by
      the principal accountant, other than the services reported above: $0 for both
      years.




Golden
      Valley’s audit committee’s pre-approval policy is to retain the services of a
      professional accountant only once the threshold established by Rule 2-01 of
      Regulation S-X has been met.




The
      audit
      committee’s pre-approval procedure is to carefully establish that each of the
      tests delineated in paragraphs (b) and (c)(1)-(3) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation
      S-X
      are met.


-24-




Signatures




In
      accordance with Section 13 of the Exchange Act, the registrant caused this
      report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly
      authorized.




GOLDEN
                VALLEY DEVELOPMENT,
                INCDate:
                  March 13, 2008
              By:
              /s/ H.
                Arthur DavisH.
                Arthur DavisPresident


.





In
      accordance with the Exchange Act, this report has been signed below by the
      following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on
      the
      dates indicated.




Date:
                    March 13, 2008
                By:
                /s/ H.
                  Arthur DavisH.
                  Arthur DavisPresident
                  and a Director
 .
 Date:
                        March 13, 2008
                    By:
                    /s/Annette
                      DavisAnnette
                      DavisTreasurer,
                        Controllerand
                        a Director
 .
 -25-