alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 20
- 00438
- CR

Sean Patrick Nelson , Appellant

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF LAMPASAS COUNTY NO. 10039 , THE HONORABLE JOHN GAUNTT , JUDGE PRESIDING

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

O n August 17, 2020, Sean Patrick Nelson entered an open plea of “guilty” in the
district court ’ s cause number 10039 to a count of bail jumping/failure to appear. See Te x. Penal
C ode § 38.10

. The trial court accepted Nelson’s ple a and found h im guilt y of the offense. After

re viewing a presentenc ing report and hearing evidence, the trial court sentenced Nelson to ten years’ imprisonment.

Appellant ’ s court

- appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by
a brief conc l u ding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (19 67 ); Garner v. State , 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see2

also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 81

– 82 (1988). Speci fically , counsel analyz ed nine possible
bases for appeal and found that each lacked merit.

Appellant ’ s counse l has certified to this Court that he sent copies of the m otion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro
se response
. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also
An ders , 386 U.S. at 744

. To dat e, appellant has not filed such a brief.

We have conducted an independent review of the record

— in cluding the record of the trial proceedings below and counsel ’ s brief

— and have fou nd no reversible error. See Anders , 386 U

. S. a t 744; Garner , 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). W e therefore agree with counsel t hat the record presents no arguably meritorious ground for review

. We grant counsel ’ s mot ion to w ithdraw f rom the cas e and a ffirm the judg ment of conviction

.

__________________________________________ Edward Smith , Justice
Before Ch ief Justice Byrne, Justice Ba ker and Smith
Affirmed
Filed: June 30, 2021
Do Not Publish
#### FRANKLIN v. STATE.

No. 25802.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 9, 1952.

IT. F. Grindstaff, Rotan, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

This is a conviction for unlawfully selling whisky in a dry area, with punishment assessed at a fine of $300 and 100 days in jail.

The information alleges that the sale was made to John Hynd in Fisher County, Tex*563as, a dry area, and contains the additional and descriptive averment that the sale was “on the premises in the City of Rotan, Texas.”

Such descriptive averment was unnecessary to charge the offense but, having so alleged, the state assumed the burden of supporting that allegation by the proof.

We fail to find any testimony showing that the sale was made in the “City of Rotan, Texas.”

The evidence, in not establishing the allegations of the information, is insufficient to sustain the conviction.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate recor d, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered sub mitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### January 12, 2006 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. KENNETH EUGENE WRIGHT, Defendant - Appellant. No. 05-6203 (D.C. No. 91-CR-51-R) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY , O’BRIEN , and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges. ** Defendant-Appellant Kenneth Eugene Wright appeals t he district court’s denial of his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) t o modify his sentence. Mr. Wright was convicted of possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to 292 months imprisonment and four years supervised release. He appealed his sentence and it was affirmed. United- 2 -

States v. Wright , No. 91-6349, 1993 WL 204158 (10th Cir. June 7, 19 93) (unpublished). His certiorari petition to the Supr eme Court was denied. Wright v. United States , 510 U.S. 927 (1993). A 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion w as dismissed as untimely. Mr. Wright contends that Amendment 591 of the Se ntencing Guidelines applies to his sentence. The district court reject ed this contention. We review the district court’s determination de novo. United States v. Smartt , 129 F.3d 539, 540 (10th Cir. 1997). Section 3582(c)(2) allows the di strict court to reduce a term of imprisonment if the defendant’s sentence was based on a sentencing range that “subsequently has been lowered by the Sentencing Co mmission.” Smartt , 129 F.3d at 540 (internal quotations and citations omitted). While § 1B1.10 gives Amendment 591 retroactive effect, the Amendment doe s not apply to Mr. Wright’s sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c). Mr. Wright’s interpretationof the scope of that amendment is in error. Amendment 591 amends § 1B1.1(a), § 1B1.2(a), the Commentary to § 1B1.2 and § 2D1.2, an d Appendix A (Statutory Index). See id. Mr. Wright was sentenced under § 2D1.1, not under§ 2D1.2. As such, Amendment 591’s changes to § 2D1.2 do not aff ect Mr. Wright’s sentence. AFFIRMED. Mr. Wright’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr.- 3 - Circuit Judge
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H on orabl e B arbaraM . L ynn, U . S . D i stri ctJudg e f or the N orthern ** D i s tr i c tof

T e xa s , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R HO ND A WI L KI NS ON , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. CL ARK COU NTY SCHOO L DI ST RI CT , D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 07- 15627 D . C. N o . CV - 0 5 - 0 1 8 0 3 - J CM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da J a m e s C . M a ha n, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r10, 2009 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B e f o r e : S C HR OE DE R a n d C AL L AH AN , C i r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n d L YN N, D i stri ct ** Judg e. A pp el l ant , R ho nd a W i l ki nson , appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s e ntryof sum m ary j udgm e nti n he rc a s e a l l e gi ng s e xua l ha r a s s m e nta nd unl a w f ul r e t a l i a t i on dur i ng h e re m p lo y m e n t b y th e C la rk C o u n ty S c h o o l D is tr ic t. 

# FI LED JAN 04 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

A pp el l antal l eged thatthe cond uctof on e of hercow orkers w as so se vere a n d p e rv a s iv e th a t it c r e a te d ah o s tile w o rke n v ir o n m e n t. See P orterv. C al . D ep’t o f C o rr. , 41 9 F . 3d 88 5, 89 2 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). W hi l e s om e of the cond uct c o m p la in e d o f

w a s u n w e lc o m e a n d s e x u a l in n a tu r e , it w a s n o t s o s e v e r e a s to c o n s titu te ah o s tile e n v ir o n m e n t. Se e i d. S um m ary j ud gm entw as approp ri at e. T he r e t a l i a t i on c l a i m i s f ounde d upon he rpe rm a ne nttr a ns f e rt o adi f

f e r e nt f a c ility in v o lv in g a lle g e d ly p o o rw o rk in g c o n d itio n s a n d r e d u c e d r e s p o n s ib ilitie s . T he tra nsfe r f

ol l ow ed a threa tby her di re ctsupervi sor thatshe w ou l d n othave a ca re erw i th the D i stri cti f s he pu rs ued a haras sm entcl ai m . T hi s i s i nd i ca t i ve of an u n la w f u l r e ta lia to ry m o tiv e . See B e r ge ne v . Sal t

R i v e rP r oj e c t

A gr i c . I m pr ov e m e nt & P o w e rD is t. , 272 F . 3d 1136, 1141- 42 ( 9th C i r . 2001) . T he e m pl oy e rc l a i m e d the tra nsfe r w as m ot i vat ed by concerns f or the appel l ant ’ s s af

ety, so there ar e m at er i al i s s u e s o f f a c t . Su mma ry j u d g me n tw a s n o tap p r o p r i a t e o n th e r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. A F F I R M E D in p a r t a n d R E V E R S E D in p a r t a n d R E M A N D E D . E a c h p a r ty t o b ear i t s o w n co st s.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7600

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CRAIG A. MURPHY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:96-cr-00066-REP-17; 

3:16-cv-00764-REP; 3:16-cv-00765-REP)

Submitted: March 20, 2017 Decided: March 28, 2017

Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Craig A. Murphy, Appellant Pro Se. Brian R. Hood, Heather Hart Mansfield, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Stephen Wiley Miller, Elizabeth Wu, 

Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Craig A. Murphy seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his filings as 

successive motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) and dismissing them for lack of 

jurisdiction. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Murphy has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2028 In Re: BRUCE BENNETT, SR., Debtor.

---------------------------- BRUCE BENNETT, SR., Debtor - Appellant, versus BAY VIEW BANK; HFTA FIRST FINANCIAL; MANUFACTURERS & TRADERS TRUST COMPANY, as trustee for Securitization Series 1997-3 Agreement dated 6/12/97, Creditors - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior DistrictJudge; Robert S. Carr, Magistrate Judge. (CA-04-23129-2-CWH; BK04-09737-WB) Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: February 28, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce Bennett, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Weston Adams, III, MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Bruce Bennett, Sr., seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order granting the Appellees’ motion to include a bankruptcy court order in the record on appeal. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Bennett seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Bennett’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### HERMAN ROMAN *v.*EYELETS FOR INDUSTRY, INC., ET AL.

The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 357 (AC 16964), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court misapply General Statutes § 31-294c by affirming a compensation review board *913decision holding that a claimant who had an accepted, compensable leg and ankle injury is not barred from bringing a back claim, allegedly occurring from the same accident, more than one year after the date of the accident, without filing a written notice of claim for the back injury within the first year or otherwise satisfying one of the exceptions to the written notice of claim requirement?”

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15959.

*Dominick C. Statile,*in support of the petition.

Decided June 17, 1998
Approval of DOE's Request for Site Specific LDR Treatability Variance of 04 

Aug 2012

Stephen Tyahla to: kderoos 06/20/2012 12:42 PM

Cc: kmitchell, tmurphy, synder, Steve Armann

Bcc: Elaine Eby, Jesse Miller

Mr. DeRoos:

The original of the attached is being mailed to you today.

All cc's are being provided solely via this e-mail. 

Please don't hesitate to contact me if there are any questions.

Thanks,

Stephen F. Tyahla, P.E.,CHMM

Project Manager, RCRA Corrective Action Office

Waste Management Division

U.S. EPA Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street (WST-5)

San Francisco, CA 94105

Ph. 415.972.3466 / Fax 415.947.3533

tyahla.stephen@epa.gov

[This email, including any attachments, may contain non-public, privileged and/or confidential information 

solely intended to be conveyed to the designated recipient(s). If you receive this email and are not an 

intended recipient, please delete this email and its attachments immediately. The unauthorized use, 

dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this email and its attachments is strictly prohibited by law.] 

2012-06-20_Approval_Letter.pdf
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

CARL W. HEWES, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1195 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed March 1, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Wayne M. Durden, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
LaROSE, C.J., and VILLANTI and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
#### LEWIS v. STEVES SASH & DOOR CO.

No. 4338.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

Oct. 28, 1943.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 18, 1943.

E. P. Lipscomb, of San Antonio, for appellant. _

Eskridge, Groce & Chiles and A. C. Lesher, Jr., all of San Antonio, for appellee.

PRICE, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of one of the District Courts exercising jurisdiction in Bexar County. Gilbert Lewis, through his father, Arthur J. Lewis, as next friend, filed suit against the Steves Sash & Door Company, a corporation, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been inflicted by said defendant. The personal injuries charged were alleged to have been inflicted upon the plaintiff before his birth through the negligence in striking his mother by one of defendant’s trucks; that the said violence to his mother caused him to be born dumb. Defendant specially excepted to these allegations, in substance, that plaintiff’s petition showed that at the time of the alleged injury to Virginia Lewis, the plaintiff was not in being, but was an unborn child, and that hence it has no right of recovery. The trial court sustained this special exception and, on plaintiff declining to amend, dismissed the case. Plaintiff perfected this appeal therefrom.

In our opinion the action of the trial court was correct. The case is governed by the case of Magnolia Coca Cola Bottling Company v. Jordan, 124 Tex. 347, 78 S.W.2d 944, 97 A.L.R. 1513. The opinion of Judge Smedley in that case was expressly adopted as the opinion of the Supreme Court. The case of Nelson v. G., H. & S. A. R. R. Co., 78 Tex. 621, 14 S.W. 1021, 11 L.R.A. 391, 22 Am.St.Rep. 81, relied upon by appellant, is discussed and distinguished.

If we correctly understand the case of Magnolia Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Jordan, supra, it was there held that the parents of a child could not recover for prenatal injuries to the child because the child, had it survived, could not have recovered. The question is discussed and considered with great learning and ability. The disposition of the case accords with the overwhelming weight of authority. See 20 A.L.R. 1505; 97 A.L.R. 1524.

It is ordered that the judgment' be in all things affirmed.

WALTHALL, J., not participating.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3351 

To assist survivors of stroke and other debilitating health occurrences in 

returning to work. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 28, 2013 

Mrs. BEATTY (for herself, Ms. NORTON, and Ms. CLARKE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce 

A BILL 

To assist survivors of stroke and other debilitating health 

occurrences in returning to work. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Return to Work 

5 Awareness Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ASSISTING SURVIVORS OF STROKE AND OTHER DE7 BILITATING HEALTH OCCURRENCES IN RE8 TURNING TO WORK. 

9 The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Job Ac10 commodation Network, may disseminate information and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3351 IH

1 promote awareness among survivors of stroke and other 

2 debilitating health occurrences, such as traumatic brain 

3 injury and heart attack, and the families of such survivors, 

4 as well as among private employers, government agencies, 

5 employee representatives, and service providers to— 

6 (1) assist survivors of stroke and such other de7 bilitating health occurrences in returning to work; 

8 (2) improve survivor’s employability and dem9 onstrate to employers the most effective ways to cap10 italize on the value and talent that these survivors 

11 add to the workplace; and 

12 (3) enhance self-employment and entrepreneur13 ship options for survivors. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
##### 



EXHIBIT 21. SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
 STATE OFSUBSIDIARY
    
    INCORPORATIONAOC Transport, Inc.
    
    DelawareGettyMart, Inc.
    
    DelawareGetty AR Leasing, Inc.
    
    ArkansasGetty CA Leasing, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaGetty CT Leasing, Inc.
    
    New YorkGetty HI Indemnity, Inc.
    
    HawaiiGetty HI Leasing, Inc.
    
    HawaiiGetty IL Leasing, Inc.
    
    IllinoisGetty Kalakaua Leasing, Inc.
    
    HawaiiGetty Kingston Corporation
    
    New YorkGetty MD Leasing, Inc.
    
    MarylandGetty MO Leasing, Inc.
    
    MissouriGetty NC Leasing, Inc.
    
    North CarolinaGetty ND Leasing, Inc.
    
    North DakotaGetty NH Leasing, Inc.
    
    New HampshireGetty NY Leasing, Inc.
    
    New YorkGetty Properties Corp.
    
    DelawareGetty Saugerties Corporation
    
    New YorkGetty TM Corp.
    
    MarylandGetty TX Leasing, Inc.
    
    TexasGetty VA Leasing, Inc.
    
    New YorkLeemilts Flatbush Avenue, Inc.
    
    New YorkLeemilts Petroleum, Inc.
    
    New YorkPower Test Realty Company Limited Partnership*
    
    New YorkSlattery Group, Inc.
    
    New Jersey
 
 *
    
    ninety-nine percent owned by the Company, representing the limited partner units, and one percent
owned by Getty Properties Corp., representing the general partner interest.
Exhibit 31.1



ESSEX PORTFOLIO, L.P.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Keith R. Guericke, Chief Executive Officer of Essex Property Trust, Inc., the general
partner of the registrant Essex Portfolio, L.P., certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this annualreport on Form10-K of
Essex Portfolio, L.P.;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The general partner's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a) 	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be deigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) 	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and

c) 	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting; and

5.	The general partner's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the general
partner's auditors and the audit committee of general partner's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a) 	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; and

b) 	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.



Date: March 12, 2004



/s/ Keith R. GuerickeKeith R. Guericke
Chief Executive Officer
Essex Property Trust, Inc., general partner of
Essex Portfolio, L.P.

---