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

                                   Form 10-QSB

(Mark One)
[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
      ACT OF 1934

              For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005


[ ]   TRANSITION REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT


             For the transition period from _________to _________

                         Commission file number 0-10304


                               ANGELES PARTNERS X
      (Exact name of small business issuer as specified in its charter)



         California                                              95-3557899
(State or other jurisdiction of                               (I.R.S. Employer
 incorporation or organization)                              Identification No.)

                          55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089
                        Greenville, South Carolina 29602
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

                                 (864) 239-1000
                           (Issuer's telephone number)


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  X   No ___

Indicate by check mark whether the  registrant is a shell company (as defined in
Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act) Yes __ No X_

<PAGE>


                         PART I - FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1.     FINANCIAL STATEMENTS



                               ANGELES PARTNERS X
                           CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
                                   (Unaudited)
                        (in thousands, except unit data)

                               September 30, 2005

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


Assets
<S>                                                                       <C>
   Cash and cash equivalents                                              $     12
   Receivables and deposits                                                    154
   Restricted escrow                                                           152
   Other assets                                                                135
   Investment property:
      Land                                                     $   101
      Buildings and related personal property                    6,595
                                                                 6,696
      Less accumulated depreciation                             (4,755)      1,941
                                                                          $  2,394

Liabilities and Partners' Deficit
Liabilities
   Tenant security deposit liabilities                                    $     18
   Accrued property taxes                                                      128
   Other liabilities                                                            57
   Due to affiliates (Note B)                                                  797
   Mortgage note payable                                                     4,799

Partners' Deficit
   General partners                                           $ (226)
   Limited partners (18,625 units issued and
      outstanding)                                             (3,179)      (3,405)
                                                                          $  2,394

         See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
</TABLE>


<PAGE>


                               ANGELES PARTNERS X
                      CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
                                   (Unaudited)
                      (in thousands, except per unit data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                Three Months Ended     Nine Months Ended
                                                  September 30,          September 30,
                                                 2005       2004        2005       2004
Revenues:
<S>                                             <C>         <C>        <C>         <C>
  Rental income                                 $ 324       $ 326      $ 932       $ 946
  Other income                                      29          24         85          64
  Casualty gain (Note C)                            --          --         --          99
     Total revenues                                353         350      1,017       1,109

Expenses:
  Operating                                        154         156        465         398
  General and administrative                        26          21         74         111
  Depreciation                                      98          78        268         240
  Interest                                          80          97        211         292
  Property taxes                                    44          42        133         126
     Total expenses                                402         394      1,151       1,167

Net loss                                        $ (49)      $ (44)     $ (134)     $ (58)

Net loss allocated to general
  partners (1%)                                  $ --       $ --        $ (1)      $ (1)
Net loss allocated to limited
  partners (99%)                                   (49)        (44)      (133)        (57)
                                                $ (49)      $ (44)     $ (134)     $ (58)

Net loss per limited partnership unit          $ (2.63)    $ (2.36)   $ (7.14)    $ (3.06)

Distributions per limited partnership unit       $ --       $ --        $ --      $ 24.97

         See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
</TABLE>

<PAGE>


                              ANGELES PARTNERS X
            CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS' DEFICIT
                                   (Unaudited)
                        (in thousands, except unit data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                       Limited
                                     Partnership     General      Limited
                                        Units        Partners    Partners     Total

<S>                                    <C>             <C>        <C>        <C>
Original capital contributions         18,714          $ 1        $18,714    $18,715

Partners' deficit at
   December 31, 2004                   18,625         $ (225)    $(3,046)    $(3,271)

Net loss for the nine months
   ended September 30, 2005                --             (1)       (133)        (134)

Partners' deficit
   at September 30, 2005               18,625        $ (226)     $(3,179)     $(3,405)

         See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
</TABLE>

<PAGE>


                               ANGELES PARTNERS X
                      CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
                                   (Unaudited)
                                 (in thousands)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                    Nine Months Ended
                                                                      September 30,
                                                                      2005      2004
Cash flows from operating activities:
<S>                                                                 <C>         <C>
  Net loss                                                          $ (134)     $ (58)
  Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash
   provided by operating activities:
   Depreciation                                                        268         240
   Amortization of loan costs                                           34          14
   Casualty gain                                                        --         (99)
   Bad debt expense                                                     10          25
   Change in accounts:
      Receivables and deposits                                         (67)         43
      Other assets                                                       8         (52)
      Accounts payable                                                 (27)         38
      Tenant security deposit liabilities                                5          --
      Accrued property taxes                                            68         (40)
      Due to affiliates                                                 58          31
      Other liabilities                                                (10)         --
       Net cash provided by operating activities                       213         142

Cash flows from investing activities:
  Insurance proceeds received                                           --          86
  Property improvements and replacements                              (361)       (313)
  Net withdrawals from restricted escrows                               --          45
       Net cash used in investing activities                          (361)       (182)

Cash flows from financing activities:
  Distributions to partners                                             --        (470)
  Advances from affiliate                                              160          20
  Payments on mortgage notes payable                                   (76)        (59)
  Loan costs refunded, net                                               5          --
       Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities              89        (509)


Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents                              (59)       (549)

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period                        71         592


Cash and cash equivalents at end of period                           $ 12        $ 43

Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
  Cash paid for interest                                            $ 157       $ 278

Supplemental disclosure of non-cash activity:
  Property improvements and replacements in accounts payable         $ --        $ 21

         See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
</TABLE>

<PAGE>


                               ANGELES PARTNERS X
                   NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
                                   (Unaudited)


Note A - Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements of Angeles Partners
X (the  "Partnership"  or  "Registrant")  have been prepared in accordance  with
generally accepted accounting  principles for interim financial  information and
with  the  instructions  to Form  10-QSB  and Item  310(b)  of  Regulation  S-B.
Accordingly,  they do not include all of the information and footnotes  required
by generally accepted accounting  principles for complete financial  statements.
The general partner responsible for management of the Partnership's  business is
Angeles Realty  Corporation (the "General  Partner" or "ARC"). In the opinion of
the General Partner,  all adjustments  (consisting of normal recurring accruals)
considered  necessary  for a fair  presentation  have been  included.  Operating
results for the three and nine month  periods  ended  September 30, 2005 are not
necessarily  indicative  of the results that may be expected for the year ending
December 31, 2005. For further information,  refer to the consolidated financial
statements and footnotes thereto included in the Partnership's  Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended  December  31,  2004.  The  General  Partner is a
wholly  owned  subsidiary  of  Apartment   Investment  and  Management   Company
("AIMCO"), a publicly traded real estate investment trust.

Note B - Transactions with Affiliated Parties

The  Partnership  has no  employees  and depends on the General  Partner and its
affiliates for the management and administration of all Partnership  activities.
The  Partnership  Agreement  provides  for certain  payments to  affiliates  for
services and  reimbursement of certain expenses incurred by affiliates on behalf
of the Partnership.

Affiliates  of the  General  Partner  receive  5% of  gross  receipts  from  the
Partnership's   property  as  compensation  for  providing  property  management
services.  The  Partnership  paid to such affiliates  approximately  $51,000 and
$48,000 for the nine months  ended  September  30, 2005 and 2004,  respectively,
which are included in operating expenses.

Affiliates of the General Partner charged the Partnership for  reimbursement  of
accountable  administrative  expenses  amounting  to  approximately  $79,000 and
$74,000 for the nine months  ended  September  30, 2005 and 2004,  respectively.
These amounts are included in general and administrative expenses and investment
property.  The portion of these  reimbursements  included in investment property
for the nine  months  ended  September  30,  2005 and 2004 are fees  related  to
construction management services provided by an affiliate of the General Partner
of approximately $45,000 and $43,000,  respectively. The construction management
service fees are  calculated  based on a percentage  of additions to  investment
property. At September 30, 2005,  approximately $78,000 is owed to affiliates of
the  General  Partner  for  unpaid  reimbursements  and  is  included  in due to
affiliates.

In  accordance  with the  Partnership  Agreement,  an  affiliate  of the General
Partner  advanced  the  Partnership  approximately  $20,000  to cover  operating
expenses at the property during the nine months ended September 30, 2004. During
the fourth  quarter of 2004,  an affiliate of the General  Partner  advanced the
Partnership  approximately  $510,000 to repay the mortgage  encumbering Carriage
Hills Apartments.  During the nine months ended September 30, 2005, an affiliate
of the General Partner advanced the Partnership  approximately  $160,000 to fund
capital  improvements  and  operating  expenses  at Carriage  Hills  Apartments.
Interest  accrues  at the prime  rate plus 2% (8.75%  at  September  30,  2005).
Interest  expense  was  approximately  $26,000 and less than $1,000 for the nine
months ended September 30, 2005 and 2004,  respectively.  At September 30, 2005,
the total  amount of advances  and accrued  interest  due to an affiliate of the
General Partner was approximately $719,000 and is included in due to affiliates.

Pursuant  to the  Partnership  Agreement,  the  General  Partner is  entitled to
receive a distribution  equal to 4% of the aggregate  disposition  price of sold
properties. The Partnership paid a distribution of approximately $210,000 to the
General  Partner  related  to the sale of  Greentree  Apartments  in  2003.  The
Partnership paid a distribution of approximately $154,000 to the General Partner
related to the sale of Vista Hills Apartments in 1999. These  distributions  are
subordinate  to  the  limited   partners   receiving   their  original   capital
contributions  plus a  cumulative  preferred  return  of 6% per  annum  of their
adjusted capital  investment,  as defined in the Partnership  Agreement.  If the
limited   partners  have  not  received  these  returns  when  the   Partnership
terminates,  the General Partner will be required to return these amounts to the
Partnership.

The Partnership  Agreement provides for a fee equal to 5% of "net cash flow from
operations",  as defined in the Partnership Agreement, to be paid to the General
Partner for executive and administrative  services.  The General Partner did not
earn a fee for the nine months ended September 30, 2005 or 2004.

The  Partnership  insures its  property up to certain  limits  through  coverage
provided by AIMCO which is  generally  self-insured  for a portion of losses and
liabilities  related  to  workers'  compensation,   property  casualty,  general
liability and vehicle liability.  The Partnership insures its property above the
AIMCO  limits  through  insurance  policies  obtained  by  AIMCO  from  insurers
unaffiliated  with the General  Partner.  During the nine months ended September
30,  2005 and 2004,  the  Partnership  was  charged by AIMCO and its  affiliates
approximately $18,000 and $17,000, respectively, for insurance coverage and fees
associated with policy claims administration.

Note C - Casualty Event

On June 29, 2003, there was a fire at Carriage Hills Apartments,  causing damage
to six units. The property suffered damages of approximately $287,000. Insurance
proceeds of approximately  $191,000 were received during the year ended December
31, 2003 to cover damages to the property. The Partnership recognized a casualty
gain of approximately  $153,000 resulting from the receipt of insurance proceeds
net of the write-off of approximately  $38,000 in  undepreciated  damaged assets
during the year ended December 31, 2003.  During the nine months ended September
30, 2004, the Partnership  recognized a casualty gain of approximately  $99,000,
resulting  from the receipt of additional  insurance  proceeds of  approximately
$86,000 and an  adjustment  to correct the previous  write-off of  undepreciated
damaged assets of approximately $13,000.  During the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2004 the Partnership received  approximately $19,000 to cover lost
rents, which is included in rental income.

<PAGE>

Note D - Contingencies

In March 1998, several putative unit holders of limited partnership units of the
Partnership  commenced an action  entitled  Rosalie  Nuanes,  et al. v. Insignia
Financial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Nuanes action") in the Superior Court of the
State of  California  for the  County  of San  Mateo.  The  plaintiffs  named as
defendants,  among others,  the Partnership,  its General Partner and several of
their affiliated  partnerships and corporate  entities.  The action purported to
assert  claims on behalf of a class of  limited  partners  and  derivatively  on
behalf of a number of limited partnerships  (including the Partnership) that are
named as nominal defendants, challenging, among other things, the acquisition of
interests in certain General Partner entities by Insignia  Financial Group, Inc.
("Insignia") and entities that were, at one time,  affiliates of Insignia;  past
tender offers by the Insignia  affiliates to acquire limited  partnership units;
management of the  partnerships  by the Insignia  affiliates;  and the series of
transactions  which  closed on October 1, 1998 and  February  26,  1999  whereby
Insignia and Insignia  Properties Trust,  respectively,  were merged into AIMCO.
The plaintiffs sought monetary damages and equitable relief,  including judicial
dissolution of the Partnership. In addition, during the third quarter of 2001, a
complaint captioned Heller v. Insignia Financial Group (the "Heller action") was
filed against the same  defendants  that are named in the Nuanes  action.  On or
about August 6, 2001,  plaintiffs  filed a first amended  complaint.  The Heller
action was brought as a purported  derivative  action,  and asserted claims for,
among other things,  breach of fiduciary duty, unfair  competition,  conversion,
unjust  enrichment,  and judicial  dissolution.  On January 28, 2002,  the trial
court granted  defendants  motion to strike the  complaint.  Plaintiffs  took an
appeal from this order.

On January 8, 2003,  the parties filed a  Stipulation  of Settlement in proposed
settlement of the Nuanes  action and the Heller  action.  On June 13, 2003,  the
court granted final approval of the settlement and entered  judgment in both the
Nuanes and Heller actions. On August 12, 2003, an objector ("Objector") filed an
appeal (the "Appeal")  seeking to vacate and/or reverse the order  approving the
settlement and entering  judgment  thereto.  On May 4, 2004 the Objector filed a
second appeal  challenging  the court's use of a referee and its order requiring
Objector to pay those fees.

On March 21, 2005, the Court of Appeals issued opinions in both pending appeals.
With regard to the settlement and judgment entered thereto, the Court of Appeals
vacated  the trial  court's  order and  remanded  to the trial court for further
findings  on the basis that the "state of the record is  insufficient  to permit
meaningful  appellate  review".  With regard to the second appeal,  the Court of
Appeals  reversed the order requiring the Objector to pay referee fees. On April
26, 2005,  the Court of Appeals  lifted the stay of a pending  appeal related to
the Heller action and the trial court's order striking the  complaint.  On April
28, 2005, the Objector  filed a Petition for Review with the California  Supreme
Court in connection with the opinion vacating the order approving settlement and
remanding for further findings.  On June 10, 2005, the California  Supreme Court
denied  Objector's  Petition for Review and the Court of Appeals sent the matter
back to the trial court on June 21,  2005.  The parties  intend to ask the trial
court to make further findings in connection with settlement consistent with the
Court of Appeal's  remand order.  With respect to the related Heller appeal,  on
July 28, 2005,  the Court of Appeals  reversed the trial court's order  striking
the first amended complaint.

On August 18, 2005,  Objector and his counsel filed a motion to  disqualify  the
trial court based on a peremptory challenge and filed a motion to disqualify for
cause on October 17, 2005. On or about October 13, 2005 Objector  filed a motion
to  intervene  and on or about  October  19,  2005  filed  both a motion to take
discovery  relating to the adequacy of plaintiffs as derivative  representatives
and a motion to dissolve the anti-suit injunction in connection with settlement.
On October 27, 2005, the Court denied Objector's peremptory challenge and struck
Objector's motion to disqualify for cause. No hearing has been set on Objector's
remaining motions. On November 3, 2005, Objector and his counsel filed a writ of
mandate to the Court of Appeals challenging the court's October 27, 2005 order.

The  General  Partner  does not  anticipate  that any costs to the  Partnership,
whether legal or settlement costs,  associated with these cases will be material
to the Partnership's overall operations.

AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company, both affiliates of the General
Partner,  are defendants in a lawsuit alleging that they willfully  violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by failing to pay maintenance workers overtime
for all hours worked in excess of forty per week.  The  complaint,  filed in the
United States  District Court for the District of Columbia,  attempts to bring a
collective  action  under  the FLSA and seeks to  certify  state  subclasses  in
California, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Specifically, the plaintiffs
contend  that  AIMCO  Properties  L.P.  and NHP  Management  Company  failed  to
compensate maintenance workers for time that they were required to be "on-call".
Additionally,  the complaint  alleges AIMCO  Properties  L.P. and NHP Management
Company failed to comply with the FLSA in compensating  maintenance  workers for
time  that they  worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.  In June 2005 the Court
conditionally  certified the collective  action on both the on-call and overtime
issues,  which allows the plaintiffs to provide notice of the collective  action
to all non-exempt  maintenance  workers from August 7, 2000 through the present.
Those  employees will have the  opportunity to opt-in to the collective  action,
and AIMCO Properties,  L.P. and NHP Management Company will have the opportunity
to move to decertify the collective action. Because the court denied plaintiffs'
motion to certify state subclasses,  on September 26, 2005, the plaintiffs filed
a class action with the same  allegations  in the Superior  Court of  California
(Contra  Costa  County).  Although the outcome of any  litigation  is uncertain,
AIMCO  Properties,  L.P. does not believe that the ultimate  outcome will have a
material  adverse effect on its consolidated  financial  condition or results of
operations.  Similarly,  the General  Partner does not believe that the ultimate
outcome will have a material  adverse effect on the  Partnership's  consolidated
financial condition or results of operations.

The  Partnership  is unaware  of any other  pending  or  outstanding  litigation
matters involving it or its investment property that are not of a routine nature
arising in the ordinary course of business.

Environmental

Various  Federal,  state and local laws subject  property owners or operators to
liability for management,  and the costs of removal or  remediation,  of certain
hazardous  substances  present on a property.  Such laws often impose  liability
without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for,
the release or presence of the  hazardous  substances.  The  presence of, or the
failure to manage or remedy properly,  hazardous substances may adversely affect
occupancy at affected  apartment  communities and the ability to sell or finance
affected properties.  In addition to the costs associated with investigation and
remediation  actions  brought by government  agencies,  and  potential  fines of
penalties  imposed by such  agencies in  connection  therewith,  the presence of
hazardous  substances on a property could result in claims by private plaintiffs
for personal injury, disease, disability or other infirmities. Various laws also
impose  liability for the cost of removal,  remediation or disposal of hazardous
substances  through a  licensed  disposal  or  treatment  facility.  Anyone  who
arranges for the disposal or treatment of hazardous  substances  is  potentially
liable  under such laws.  These laws often impose  liability  whether or not the
person arranging for the disposal ever owned or operated the disposal  facility.
In connection with the ownership,  operation and management of its property, the
Partnership could  potentially be liable for environmental  liabilities or costs
associated with its property.

Mold

The Partnership is aware of lawsuits  against owners and managers of multifamily
properties asserting claims of personal injury and property damage caused by the
presence of mold, some of which have resulted in substantial  monetary judgments
or settlements. The Partnership has only limited insurance coverage for property
damage loss claims  arising from the  presence of mold and for  personal  injury
claims  related  to  mold  exposure.  Affiliates  of the  General  Partner  have
implemented a national  policy and  procedures to prevent or eliminate mold from
its  properties  and the  General  Partner  believes  that these  measures  will
minimize the effects that mold could have on residents. To date, the Partnership
has not incurred any material  costs or  liabilities  relating to claims of mold
exposure  or to  abate  mold  conditions.  Because  the  law  regarding  mold is
unsettled and subject to change the General  Partner can make no assurance  that
liabilities  resulting  from the presence of or exposure to mold will not have a
material adverse effect on the Partnership's consolidated financial condition or
results of operations.

SEC Investigation

The  Central  Regional  Office of the  United  States  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission (the "SEC")  continues its formal  investigation  relating to certain
matters.  Although  the staff of the SEC is not limited in the areas that it may
investigate,  AIMCO believes the areas of  investigation  have included  AIMCO's
miscalculated   monthly  net  rental  income  figures  in  third  quarter  2003,
forecasted  guidance,  accounts  payable,  rent  concessions,   vendor  rebates,
capitalization of payroll and certain other costs, tax credit transactions,  and
tender offers for limited  partnership  interests.  AIMCO is cooperating  fully.
AIMCO is not able to predict when the investigation will be resolved. AIMCO does
not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on its
consolidated  financial  condition  or results  of  operations.  Similarly,  the
General Partner does not believe that the ultimate  outcome will have a material
adverse effect on the Partnership's  consolidated financial condition or results
of operations.

<PAGE>

ITEM 2.     MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OR PLAN OF OPERATION

The matters discussed in this report contain certain forward-looking statements,
including, without limitation, statements regarding future financial performance
and the effect of government  regulations.  Actual results may differ materially
from those described in the forward-looking statements and will be affected by a
variety of risks and factors including,  without limitation:  national and local
economic  conditions;  the terms of  governmental  regulations  that  affect the
Registrant and interpretations of those regulations; the competitive environment
in which the Registrant operates;  financing risks, including the risk that cash
flows from operations may be insufficient to meet required payments of principal
and interest;  real estate risks, including variations of real estate values and
the general  economic  climate in local markets and  competition  for tenants in
such markets;  litigation,  including  costs  associated  with  prosecuting  and
defending  claims  and  any  adverse   outcomes,   and  possible   environmental
liabilities.   Readers  should  carefully  review  the  Registrant's   financial
statements and the notes thereto,  as well as the risk factors  described in the
documents  the  Registrant  files  from  time to time  with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission.

The Partnership's  investment  property consists of one apartment  complex.  The
following table sets forth the average occupancy of the  Partnership's  property
for the nine months ended September 30, 2005 and 2004:

                                                   Average Occupancy
      Property                                      2005       2004

      Carriage Hills Apartments                     92%        92%
        East Lansing, Michigan

The  Partnership's  financial  results depend upon a number of factors including
the ability to attract and maintain tenants at the investment property, interest
rates on mortgage  loans,  costs  incurred to operate the  investment  property,
general economic conditions and weather. As part of the ongoing business plan of
the Partnership,  the General Partner monitors the rental market  environment of
its  investment   property  to  assess  the  feasibility  of  increasing  rents,
maintaining or increasing  occupancy  levels and protecting the Partnership from
increases in expenses.  As part of this plan,  the General  Partner  attempts to
protect  the  Partnership  from the  burden of  inflation-related  increases  in
expenses by increasing  rents and  maintaining a high overall  occupancy  level.
However,  the  General  Partner  may use  rental  concessions  and  rental  rate
reductions  to offset  softening  market  conditions;  accordingly,  there is no
guarantee that the General Partner will be able to sustain such a plan. Further,
a number of factors that are outside the control of the Partnership  such as the
local  economic  climate and  weather can  adversely  or  positively  affect the
Partnership's financial results.

Results of Operations

The  Partnership's  net loss for the three and nine months ended  September  30,
2005 was approximately $49,000 and 134,000,  respectively,  compared to net loss
of  approximately  $44,000  and  $58,000,  respectively,  for the three and nine
months ended  September 30, 2004.  The increase in net loss for the three months
ended September 30, 2005 is due to an increase in total  expenses.  The increase
in net loss for the nine months ended September 30, 2005 is due to a decrease in
total revenues, partially offset by a decrease in total expenses. Total revenues
remained  relatively  constant for the three months ended  September 30, 2005 as
both rental and other income remained relatively constant. The decrease in total
revenues for the nine months ended September 30, 2005 is due to recognition of a
casualty gain during 2004 (as discussed  below) and a decrease in rental income,
partially  offset by an increase in other income.  The decrease in rental income
is due to a decrease in the average rental rate at Carriage Hills Apartments and
the receipt of insurance proceeds to cover lost rents during 2004 related to the
casualty,  partially  offset by reduced bad debt  expense at the  property.  The
increase  in other  income  for the nine  months  ended  September  30,  2005 is
primarily due to increases in utility reimbursements,  cable television revenue,
and application fees at the Partnership's investment property.

The increase in total expenses for the three months ended  September 30, 2005 is
due to increases in both depreciation and general and  administrative  expenses,
partially offset by a decrease in interest expense.  Both operating and property
tax expenses remained  relatively  constant for the three months ended September
30, 2005. The increase in total expenses for the nine months ended September 30,
2005 is due to increases in operating,  depreciation, and property tax expenses,
partially  offset by decreases in both  interest and general and  administrative
expenses. The increase in operating expenses for the nine months ended September
30, 2005 is due to  increases  in contract  maintenance,  supplies,  and payroll
related  expenses at the  Partnership's  investment  property.  The  decrease in
interest  expense for both the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005 is
primarily  due to the December  2004  refinancing  of the  mortgage  encumbering
Carriage Hills  Apartments at a lower,  variable  interest rate (as discussed in
Liquidity and Capital Resources"),  partially offset by increases in interest on
advances from an affiliate of the General  Partner and  amortization  expense of
loan costs.  The  increase in  depreciation  expense for both the three and nine
months ended September 30, 2005 is due to property improvements and replacements
placed into service at the property during the past twelve months.  The increase
in property tax expense for the nine months ended  September  30, 2005 is due to
increases in the assessed  value and tax rate at the  property.  The increase in
general and  administrative  expenses for the three months ended  September  30,
2005 is primarily due to an increase in  professional  expenses  associated with
the   administration   of  the   Partnership.   The   decrease  in  general  and
administrative  expenses  for  the  nine  months  ended  September  30,  2005 is
primarily  due to a  decrease  in the  payment of a  Michigan  partnership  tax.
Included  in general  and  administrative  expenses  for both the three and nine
months ended  September 30, 2005 and 2004 are management  reimbursements  to the
General Partner as allowed under the  Partnership  Agreement,  costs  associated
with the  quarterly and annual  communications  with  investors  and  regulatory
agencies, and the annual audit required by the Partnership Agreement.

On June 29, 2003, there was a fire at Carriage Hills Apartments,  causing damage
to six units. The property suffered damages of approximately $287,000. Insurance
proceeds of approximately  $191,000 were received during the year ended December
31, 2003 to cover damages to the property. The Partnership recognized a casualty
gain of approximately  $153,000 resulting from the receipt of insurance proceeds
net of the write-off of approximately  $38,000 in  undepreciated  damaged assets
during the year ended December 31, 2003.  During the nine months ended September
30, 2004, the Partnership  recognized a casualty gain of approximately  $99,000,
resulting  from the receipt of additional  insurance  proceeds of  approximately
$86,000 and an  adjustment  to correct the previous  write-off of  undepreciated
damaged assets of approximately $13,000.  During the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2004 the Partnership received  approximately $19,000 to cover lost
rents,  which is included in rental  income on the  consolidated  statements  of
operations.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

At  September  30,  2005,  the  Partnership  had cash and  cash  equivalents  of
approximately $12,000,  compared to approximately $43,000 at September 30, 2004.
The  decrease  in cash and  cash  equivalents  of  approximately  $59,000,  from
December 31, 2004,  is due to  approximately  $361,000 of cash used in investing
activities  partially  offset by  approximately  $213,000  of cash  provided  by
operating  activities  and  approximately  $89,000 of cash provided by financing
activities. Cash used in investing activities consisted of property improvements
and replacements.  Cash provided by financing  activities  consisted of advances
from an affiliate of the General Partner and loan costs refunded  related to the
December 2004  refinance of the mortgage  encumbering  the  property,  partially
offset by payments of principal made on the mortgage  encumbering Carriage Hills
Apartments.  The Partnership  invests its working  capital  reserves in interest
bearing accounts.

The sufficiency of existing  liquid assets to meet future  liquidity and capital
expenditure   requirements   is  directly   related  to  the  level  of  capital
expenditures  required at the  investment  property to  adequately  maintain the
physical  assets and other operating needs of the Partnership and to comply with
Federal, state and local legal and regulatory requirements.  The General Partner
monitors  developments  in the  area of legal  and  regulatory  compliance.  For
example,  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  mandates  or  suggests  additional
compliance  measures  with  regard to  governance,  disclosure,  audit and other
areas.  In light of these changes,  the  Partnership  expects that it will incur
higher  expenses  related to compliance.  Capital  improvements  planned for the
Partnership's property are detailed below.

During the nine months ended  September  30,  2005,  the  Partnership  completed
approximately  $361,000 of capital  improvements  at Carriage Hills  Apartments,
consisting primarily of structural upgrades, parking area upgrades, water heater
upgrades and floor covering  replacement.  These  improvements  were funded from
operations  and  advances  from  an  affiliate  of  the  General  Partner.   The
Partnership  regularly  evaluates the capital improvement needs of the property.
While the Partnership has no material commitments for property  improvements and
replacements,  certain routine capital expenditures are anticipated during 2005.
Such capital  expenditures will depend on the physical condition of the property
as well as  replacement  reserves  and  anticipated  cash flow  generated by the
property.

The  capital  expenditures  will be  incurred  only if  cash is  available  from
operations,  Partnership  reserves, or advances from an affiliate of the General
Partner.   To  the  extent  that  capital   improvements   are  completed,   the
Partnership's  distributable  cash flow,  if any, may be  adversely  affected at
least in the short term.

The  Partnership's  assets are thought to be sufficient for any near-term  needs
(exclusive of capital improvements) of the Partnership. On December 1, 2004, the
Partnership  obtained  a  mortgage  in the  principal  amount of  $4,875,000  on
Carriage Hills Apartments.  The existing mortgage with an outstanding  principal
amount of  approximately  $4,958,000  matured on December 1, 2004 and was repaid
with  proceeds  from the new  mortgage  and an advance  from an affiliate of the
General Partner. The new mortgage requires monthly payments beginning on January
1, 2005  until the loan  matures  September  15,  2007,  at which time a balloon
payment of  approximately  $4,598,000 is due,  with interest  being equal to the
Fannie Mae discounted mortgage-backed security index plus 85 basis points (4.60%
at September 30, 2005). The interest rate resets monthly.  The new mortgage loan
is  amortized  over 30 years  using the  interest  rate in effect at the time of
closing,  and has an option for one five-year  extension.  In addition,  the new
mortgage requires a completion repair reserve of approximately $152,000 that was
established with the lender at closing and monthly escrow deposits for taxes. As
a  condition  of  making  the new  mortgage  loan,  the  lender  required  AIMCO
Properties,  L.P., an affiliate of the Partnership, to guarantee the obligations
and  liabilities  of the  Partnership  with respect to the new  mortgage.  Total
capitalized  loan costs  associated  with the new  mortgage  were  approximately
$119,000  for the year ended  December 31,  2004.  Approximately  $5,000 in loan
costs were refunded during the nine months ended September 30, 2005.

The Partnership  distributed the following  amounts during the nine months ended
September 30, 2005 and 2004 (in thousands, except per unit data):
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                      Nine months                      Nine months
                         Ended         Per Limited        Ended         Per Limited
                     September 30,     Partnership    September 30,     Partnership
                          2005            Unit             2004             Unit

<S>           <C>        <C>             <C>               <C>             <C>
Sale proceeds (1)        $  --           $  --             $ 470           $24.97
</TABLE>

(1) From the August 2003 sale of Greentree Apartments.

Future cash  distributions  will depend on the levels of net cash generated from
operations, the timing of the debt maturity,  refinancing, and/or property sale.
The  Partnership's  cash  available  for  distribution  is reviewed on a monthly
basis.  In light of the amounts accrued and payable to affiliates of the General
Partner, there can be no assurance that the Partnership will generate sufficient
funds  from  operations,  after  required  capital  expenditures,  to permit any
distributions to its partners in 2005 or subsequent periods.

Other

In addition to its  indirect  ownership of the general  partner  interest in the
Partnership,  AIMCO and its affiliates  owned 11,518 limited  partnership  units
(the "Units") in the Partnership representing 61.84% of the outstanding Units at
September  30,  2005. A number of these Units were  acquired  pursuant to tender
offers  made by  AIMCO  or its  affiliates.  It is  possible  that  AIMCO or its
affiliates will acquire additional Units in the Partnership in exchange for cash
or a  combination  of cash and units in AIMCO  Properties,  L.P.,  the operating
partnership  of AIMCO,  either  through  private  purchases  or  tender  offers.
Pursuant to the  Partnership  Agreement,  unitholders  holding a majority of the
Units are  entitled to take action  with  respect to a variety of matters,  that
include, but are not limited to, voting on certain amendments to the Partnership
Agreement and voting to remove the General Partner. As a result of its ownership
of 61.84% of the outstanding  Units,  AIMCO and its affiliates are in a position
to control all such voting decisions with respect to the  Partnership.  Although
the  General  Partner  owes  fiduciary  duties to the  limited  partners  of the
Partnership, the General Partner also owes fiduciary duties to AIMCO as its sole
stockholder. As a result, the duties of the General Partner, as general partner,
to the  Partnership  and its limited  partners may come into  conflict  with the
duties of the General Partner to AIMCO as its sole stockholder.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

The consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States which require the Partnership
to  make  estimates  and  assumptions.  The  Partnership  believes  that  of its
significant  accounting  policies,  the following may involve a higher degree of
judgment and complexity.

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets

The  Partnership's  investment  property is recorded at cost,  less  accumulated
depreciation,  unless considered impaired.  If events or circumstances  indicate
that the carrying amount of the property may be impaired,  the Partnership  will
make an assessment of its  recoverability by estimating the undiscounted  future
cash flows,  excluding interest charges, of the property. If the carrying amount
exceeds the aggregate  future cash flows,  the  Partnership  would  recognize an
impairment  loss to the extent the carrying amount exceeds the fair value of the
property.

Real  property  investments  are  subject  to varying  degrees of risk.  Several
factors  may  adversely  affect  the  economic  performance  and  value  of  the
Partnership's  investment  property.  These factors include, but are not limited
to,  changes  in the  national,  regional  and  local  economic  climate;  local
conditions  such as an oversupply of multifamily  properties;  competition  from
other available  multifamily property owners and changes in market rental rates.
Any adverse changes in these factors could cause impairment of the Partnership's
asset.

Revenue Recognition

The Partnership generally leases apartment units for twelve-month terms or less.
The Partnership will offer rental concessions during particularly slow months or
in response  to heavy  competition  from other  similar  complexes  in the area.
Rental income attributable to leases, net of any concessions, is recognized on a
straight-line  basis over the term of the lease.  The Partnership  evaluates all
accounts  receivable  from  residents and  establishes  an allowance,  after the
application of security deposits,  for accounts greater than 30 days past due on
current tenants and all receivables due from former tenants.

ITEM 3.     CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

(a) Disclosure Controls and Procedures.  The Partnership's management,  with the
participation of the principal executive officer and principal financial officer
of the General Partner,  who are the equivalent of the  Partnership's  principal
executive officer and principal financial officer,  respectively,  has evaluated
the  effectiveness of the Partnership's  disclosure  controls and procedures (as
such term is defined  in Rules  13a-15(e)  and  15d-15(e)  under the  Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934,  as amended  (the  "Exchange  Act")) as of the end of the
period covered by this report. Based on such evaluation, the principal executive
officer and  principal  financial  officer of the General  Partner,  who are the
equivalent  of the  Partnership's  principal  executive  officer  and  principal
financial  officer,  respectively,  have  concluded  that, as of the end of such
period, the Partnership's disclosure controls and procedures are effective.

(b) Internal Control Over Financial  Reporting.  There have not been any changes
in the Partnership's  internal control over financial reporting (as such term is
defined in Rules  13a-15(f)  and  15d-15(f)  under the Exchange  Act) during the
fiscal quarter to which this report relates that have  materially  affected,  or
are reasonably likely to materially affect,  the Partnership's  internal control
over financial reporting.

<PAGE>

                           PART II - OTHER INFORMATION

ITEM 1.     LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

In March 1998, several putative unit holders of limited partnership units of the
Partnership  commenced an action  entitled  Rosalie  Nuanes,  et al. v. Insignia
Financial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Nuanes action") in the Superior Court of the
State of  California  for the  County  of San  Mateo.  The  plaintiffs  named as
defendants,  among others,  the Partnership,  its General Partner and several of
their affiliated  partnerships and corporate  entities.  The action purported to
assert  claims on behalf of a class of  limited  partners  and  derivatively  on
behalf of a number of limited partnerships  (including the Partnership) that are
named as nominal defendants, challenging, among other things, the acquisition of
interests in certain General Partner entities by Insignia  Financial Group, Inc.
("Insignia") and entities that were, at one time,  affiliates of Insignia;  past
tender offers by the Insignia  affiliates to acquire limited  partnership units;
management of the  partnerships  by the Insignia  affiliates;  and the series of
transactions  which  closed on October 1, 1998 and  February  26,  1999  whereby
Insignia and Insignia  Properties Trust,  respectively,  were merged into AIMCO.
The plaintiffs sought monetary damages and equitable relief,  including judicial
dissolution of the Partnership. In addition, during the third quarter of 2001, a
complaint captioned Heller v. Insignia Financial Group (the "Heller action") was
filed against the same  defendants  that are named in the Nuanes  action.  On or
about August 6, 2001,  plaintiffs  filed a first amended  complaint.  The Heller
action was brought as a purported  derivative  action,  and asserted claims for,
among other things,  breach of fiduciary duty, unfair  competition,  conversion,
unjust  enrichment,  and judicial  dissolution.  On January 28, 2002,  the trial
court granted  defendants  motion to strike the  complaint.  Plaintiffs  took an
appeal from this order.

On January 8, 2003,  the parties filed a  Stipulation  of Settlement in proposed
settlement of the Nuanes  action and the Heller  action.  On June 13, 2003,  the
court granted final approval of the settlement and entered  judgment in both the
Nuanes and Heller actions. On August 12, 2003, an objector ("Objector") filed an
appeal (the "Appeal")  seeking to vacate and/or reverse the order  approving the
settlement and entering judgment  thereto.  On May 4, 2004, the Objector filed a
second appeal  challenging  the court's use of a referee and its order requiring
Objector to pay those fees.

On March 21, 2005, the Court of Appeals issued opinions in both pending appeals.
With regard to the settlement and judgment entered thereto, the Court of Appeals
vacated  the trial  court's  order and  remanded  to the trial court for further
findings  on the basis that the "state of the record is  insufficient  to permit
meaningful  appellate  review".  With regard to the second appeal,  the Court of
Appeals  reversed the order requiring the Objector to pay referee fees. On April
26, 2005,  the Court of Appeals  lifted the stay of a pending  appeal related to
the Heller action and the trial court's order striking the  complaint.  On April
28, 2005, the Objector  filed a Petition for Review with the California  Supreme
Court in connection with the opinion vacating the order approving settlement and
remanding for further findings.  On June 10, 2005, the California  Supreme Court
denied  Objector's  Petition for Review and the Court of Appeals sent the matter
back to the trial court on June 21,  2005.  The parties  intend to ask the trial
court to make further findings in connection with settlement consistent with the
Court of Appeal's  remand order.  With respect to the related Heller appeal,  on
July 28, 2005,  the Court of Appeals  reversed the trial court's order  striking
the first amended complaint.

On August 18, 2005,  Objector and his counsel filed a motion to  disqualify  the
trial court based on a peremptory challenge and filed a motion to disqualify for
cause on October 17, 2005. On or about October 13, 2005 Objector  filed a motion
to  intervene  and on or about  October  19,  2005  filed  both a motion to take
discovery  relating to the adequacy of plaintiffs as derivative  representatives
and a motion to dissolve the anti-suit injunction in connection with settlement.
On October 27, 2005, the Court denied Objector's peremptory challenge and struck
Objector's motion to disqualify for cause. No hearing has been set on Objector's
remaining motions. On November 3, 2005, Objector and his counsel filed a writ of
mandate to the Court of Appeals challenging the court's October 27, 2005 order.

The  General  Partner  does not  anticipate  that any costs to the  Partnership,
whether legal or settlement costs,  associated with these cases will be material
to the Partnership's overall operations.

AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company, both affiliates of the General
Partner,  are defendants in a lawsuit alleging that they willfully  violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by failing to pay maintenance workers overtime
for all hours worked in excess of forty per week.  The  complaint,  filed in the
United States  District Court for the District of Columbia,  attempts to bring a
collective  action  under  the FLSA and seeks to  certify  state  subclasses  in
California, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Specifically, the plaintiffs
contend  that  AIMCO  Properties  L.P.  and NHP  Management  Company  failed  to
compensate maintenance workers for time that they were required to be "on-call".
Additionally,  the complaint  alleges AIMCO  Properties  L.P. and NHP Management
Company failed to comply with the FLSA in compensating  maintenance  workers for
time  that they  worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.  In June 2005 the Court
conditionally  certified the collective  action on both the on-call and overtime
issues,  which allows the plaintiffs to provide notice of the collective  action
to all non-exempt  maintenance  workers from August 7, 2000 through the present.
Those  employees will have the  opportunity to opt-in to the collective  action,
and AIMCO Properties,  L.P. and NHP Management Company will have the opportunity
to move to decertify the collective action. Because the court denied plaintiffs'
motion to certify state subclasses,  on September 26, 2005, the plaintiffs filed
a class action with the same  allegations  in the Superior  Court of  California
(Contra  Costa  County).  Although the outcome of any  litigation  is uncertain,
AIMCO  Properties,  L.P. does not believe that the ultimate  outcome will have a
material  adverse effect on its consolidated  financial  condition or results of
operations.  Similarly,  the General  Partner does not believe that the ultimate
outcome will have a material  adverse effect on the  Partnership's  consolidated
financial condition or results of operations.

ITEM 5.     OTHER INFORMATION

            None.

ITEM 6.     EXHIBITS

            See Exhibit Index.


<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES

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

                                          ANGELES PARTNERS X

                                    By:   Angeles Realty Corporation
                                          Its General Partner

                                    By:   /s/Martha L. Long
                                          Martha L. Long
                                          Senior Vice President

                                    By:   /s/Stephen B. Waters
                                           Stephen B. Waters
                                           Vice President


                                    Date: November 14, 2005


<PAGE>


                               ANGELES PARTNERS X

                                  EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit Number    Description


  3.1             Amended  Certificate  and  Agreement of Limited  Partnership
                  dated June 24,  1980,  filed in Form 10-K dated  October 31,
                  1982, and is incorporated herein by reference.

  10.4            Purchase and Sale  Agreement  with Exhibits - Carriage Hills
                  Apartments  filed  in Form 8-K  dated  July  30,  1982,  and
                  incorporated herein by reference.

  10.18           Loan Agreement dated November 30, 2004 between Carriage APX, a
                  Michigan  limited  partnership  and GMAC  Commercial  Mortgage
                  Corporation,  filed on Form 8-K  dated  December  1,  2004 and
                  incorporated herein by reference.

  10.19           Promissory Note dated November 30, 2004 between  Carriage APX,
                  a Michigan  limited  partnership and GMAC Commercial  Mortgage
                  Corporation,  filed on Form 8-K  dated  December  1,  2004 and
                  incorporated herein by reference.

  10.20           Guaranty  dated November 30, 2004 by AIMCO  Properties,  L.P.,
                  for the benefit of GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation, filed
                  on Form 8-K dated December 1, 2004 and incorporated  herein by
                  reference.

  10.21           Completion/Repair  and Security  Agreement  dated November 30,
                  2004   between   Carriage   Hills  APX,  a  Michigan   limited
                  partnership and GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation, filed on
                  Form 8-K dated  December  1, 2004 and  incorporated  herein by
                  reference.

  10.22           Assignment of Security  Instrument  dated  November 30, 2004
                  between  GMAC  Commercial  Mortgage  Corporation  and Fannie
                  Mae,   filed  on  Form  8-K  dated   December  1,  2004  and
                  incorporated herein by reference.

  31.1            Certification  of  equivalent  of  Chief  Executive  Officer
                  pursuant     to     Securities     Exchange     Act    Rules
                  13a-14(a)/15d-14(a),  as Adopted  Pursuant to Section 302 of
                  the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

  31.2            Certification  of  equivalent  of  Chief  Financial  Officer
                  pursuant     to     Securities     Exchange     Act    Rules
                  13a-14(a)/15d-14(a),  as Adopted  Pursuant to Section 302 of
                  the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

  32.1            Certification  of  equivalent of Chief  Executive  Officer and
                  Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
                  Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
                  2002.

  99A             Agreement  of Limited  Partnership  for Angeles  Partners X GP
                  Limited  Partnership  between  Angeles Realty  Corporation and
                  Angeles  Partners X, L.P.  entered into on September 15, 1993,
                  filed  in Form  10-QSB  dated  September  30,  1993,  which is
                  incorporated herein by reference.


<PAGE>


Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION


I, Martha L. Long, certify that:


1.    I have reviewed this quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of Angeles  Partners
      X;

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 small  business  issuer as of, and for, the periods  presented in this
      report;

4.    The  small  business  issuer's  other  certifying  officer(s)  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 small business issuer and have:

      (a)   Designed such  disclosure  controls and  procedures,  or caused such
            disclosure   controls  and  procedures  to  be  designed  under  our
            supervision,  to ensure that  material  information  relating to the
            small business issuer, 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  small  business   issuer'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 small  business  issuer's
            internal  control over financial  reporting that occurred during the
            small  business  issuer's  most  recent  fiscal  quarter  (the small
            business  issuer's  fourth  fiscal  quarter in the case of an annual
            report) that has  materially  affected,  or is reasonably  likely to
            materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over
            financial reporting; and

5.    The  small  business  issuer's  other  certifying  officer(s)  and I  have
      disclosed,  based on our most recent  evaluation of internal  control over
      financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
      committee of the small  business  issuer'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 small business  issuer's
            ability  to  record,   process,   summarize  and  report   financial
            information; and

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

Date: November 14, 2005

                                    /s/Martha L. Long
                                    Martha L. Long
                                    Senior Vice  President  of Angeles  Realty
                                    Corporation,   equivalent   of  the  chief
                                    executive officer of the Partnership


<PAGE>



Exhibit 31.2


                                  CERTIFICATION


I, Stephen B. Waters, certify that:


1.    I have reviewed this quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of Angeles  Partners
      X;

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 small  business  issuer as of, and for, the periods  presented in this
      report;

4.    The  small  business  issuer's  other  certifying  officer(s)  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 small business issuer and have:

      (a)   Designed such  disclosure  controls and  procedures,  or caused such
            disclosure   controls  and  procedures  to  be  designed  under  our
            supervision,  to ensure that  material  information  relating to the
            small business issuer, 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  small  business   issuer'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 small  business  issuer's
            internal  control over financial  reporting that occurred during the
            small  business  issuer's  most  recent  fiscal  quarter  (the small
            business  issuer's  fourth  fiscal  quarter in the case of an annual
            report) that has  materially  affected,  or is reasonably  likely to
            materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over
            financial reporting; and

5.    The  small  business  issuer's  other  certifying  officer(s)  and I  have
      disclosed,  based on our most recent  evaluation of internal  control over
      financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
      committee of the small  business  issuer'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 small business  issuer's
            ability  to  record,   process,   summarize  and  report   financial
            information; and


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


Date: November 14, 2005

                                    /s/Stephen B. Waters
                                    Stephen B. Waters
                                    Vice President of Angeles Realty
                                    Corporation,
                                    equivalent of the chief financial officer
                                    of the Partnership


<PAGE>




Exhibit 32.1


                          Certification of CEO and CFO
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             As Adopted Pursuant to
                Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In  connection  with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of Angeles  Partners X
(the "Partnership"),  for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
Martha  L.  Long,  as the  equivalent  of the  chief  executive  officer  of the
Partnership,  and Stephen B. Waters,  as the  equivalent of the chief  financial
officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that, to the best of his knowledge:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Partnership.


                                           /s/Martha L. Long
                                    Name:  Martha L. Long
                                    Date:  November 14, 2005


                                           /s/Stephen B. Waters
                                    Name:  Stephen B. Waters
                                    Date:  November 14, 2005

This  certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.