N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOHN SHANNON, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 11-56721 D.C . No. 5:10-c v-00359-AGR M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Alic i a G. R ose nbe rg, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding ** Subm itte d July

12, 2013 *** B e fore : HUG, FAR

R IS, an d LEAVY, C irc uit Judge s. John Sha nnon a p pe a l s pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a ffirm ing the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s (“ C om m issione r” ) de nia l of his a pplic ations for 

# FIL ED SEP 20 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

rtie s c onse n te d to proc e e d be fore a m a gistra te judge . Se e 28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

*** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Soc ia l Se c urity disa bility insura nc e be ne fits a

nd supple m e nta l se c urity

inc om e be ne fits unde r Title s II and XVI the Soc i a l Se c urity Ac t . W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm . W e re vie w de novo thedistric t c ourt’ s de c ision upholding the de nia l of be ne fits. Be rry

v . Astrue , 622 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th C ir. 2010). W e m ust a ffirm the d e nia l of be ne fits unle s s it is ba se d on le ga l e rror or the findings of fa c t a re not supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e . Vale ntine v . C omm’r Soc . Se c . Admin ., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th C ir. 2009). At ste p five of the se que n tia l e va luation proc e s s, the a dm inistra tive la w judge (“ ALJ” ) c onc lude d tha t Shannon c ould pe rform

work tha t e xiste d in signific ant num

be rs in the nationa l e c onom y . Sha nnon c onte n ds tha

t the ALJ e rre d by ignoring the

la y witne ss te stim ony . Although the ALJ e rre d by disre ga rding this te stim ony

without c om

m e nt, se e Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th C ir. 2012), the ALJ’ s e rror is ha rm le ss. Se e id . at 1121-22 (e rror harm le ss whe n the s am e e vide nc e the A L J re fe rre d to in disc re diting the c la im ant’ s te stim ony

a lso disc re dits thela

y witne ss’ s sta

te m e nts). Sha

nnon a l so c onte nds tha

t the ALJ ignore d e vide nc e indic ating the re wa s no substa ntia l work a

ppropria te for him . Although a

voc at iona l e xpe rt te stifie d tha t the re we re no jobs for a

hy pothe tic a l individual with lim

ita tions to the

e xte nt c la i m e d by

Shannon, the ALJ offe re d 1 1 - 5 6 7 2 1 2spe c ific , c le ar and c onvinc ing re a sons for re je c ting Sha

nnon’ s te stim ony

a bout the e xte nt of his lim

ita tions on whic h the e xpe rt’ s te stim ony wa s ba se d. S

e e Linge n fe lte r v . Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028, 1035-36 (9th C i r. 2007). Ac c ordingly , substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the ALJ’ s de te rm inat ion tha

t the C om m issione r c arrie d his burde n to prove tha

t Sha nnon c an e nga ge in work e xisting in signific ant num be rs in the nationa l e c onom y . 20 C .F.R . § 404.1520(a )(4)(v); Loc k

w ood v . C omm’r Soc . Se c . Admin. , 616 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th C ir. 2010). Sha nnon’ s re m a ining a

rgum e nts re ga

rding the ALJ’ s findings a re without m e rit. While this c a se wa s pe nding in the distric t c ourt, Sha nnon file d a

subse que n t a pplic ation for be ne fits for whic h he re c e ive d a favora ble de c ision, issue d Oc tobe r 21, 2011. Sha

nnon c onte nds be ne fits should be grante d in this c a se be c a

use the e vide nc e subm itte d wa s a lso submitte d in his subse que n t c a se . Although re m and m ay be a ppropria te whe re a subse que nt, a

pprove d a pplic ation ha d a

n onse t da

te c lose in tim e to the de nia l unde r re vie w , a nd it is unc le ar from

the re c o rd whe the r the d e c isions a

re re c o nc i la

ble , Luna v . Astrue , 623 F.3d 1032, 1034-35 (9th C ir. 2010), the c la im e d disa

bility onse t da te in the pre se nt c a se is in 2007, a nd in the subse q ue nt fa vora ble c a se , the disa

bility onse t date is in 2010, which is not c lose in tim e to the pre se nt c a se . Additionally , the subse que n t favora ble c a se c onta ine d

1 1 - 5 6 7 2 1 3diffe re nt m e dic a l e vide nc e and Sha nnon’ s olde r a ge c ate gory . Ac c ordingly , a re m and is unwa

rrante d. AFFIRM E D.

1 1 - 5 6 7 2 1 4