* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The 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.
1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined (continued...) 

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

### FEB 25 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT L. BLOCKER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. SHIRLEY S. CHATER, Commissioner, Social Security Administration,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 96-5174 (D.C. No. 95-CV-513-M) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Claimant-appellant Robert L. Blocker appeals the di strict court’s affirmance of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of claimant’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits. 1 Because claimant’s appeal raises issues which wer e not presented1 (...continued)

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Th e case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. -2- to the district court or to the Appeals Council, an d because the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, we a ffirm. Claimant applied for disability and SSI benefits inJuly 1992, alleging an inability to work after December 31, 1991, due to e pilepsy, back problems, and high blood pressure. There is also evidence that c laimant suffers from a left knee impairment. After a hearing at which a vocational expert testified, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found that claimant retains the ability to perform his former work as a wrapper despite his impairment s and, therefore, he is not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review, makin g the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. The district c ourt affirmed, and this appeal followed. We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether her factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether correct legal standards were applied. See Castellano v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs. , 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir. 1994). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to supporta conclusion.” Id. (quotations and citations omitted). We may “neithe r reweigh the evidence nor-3-

substitute our judgment” for that of the Commission er. Casias v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs. , 933 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir. 1991). On appeal, claimant argues that the ALJ erred in fi nding that claimant retains the ability to lift twenty-five pounds freq uently, and in failing to consider the vocational effect of claimant’s “absent seizure s.” Neither of these issues was raised, however, to the Appeals Council or to the d istrict court. See R. II at 24-25; Plaintiff’s Memorandum Brief, attached to Ap pellant’s Brief. Absent compelling reasons, we do not consider issues raise d for the first time on appeal. See Crow v. Shalala , 40 F.3d 323, 324 (10th Cir. 1994). As claimant h as not identified any compelling reasons to deviate from the general rule, we hold that his issues have not been preserved for appeal. See id. Even if these issues were properly before us, the Commissioner’s conclusion that claimant can perform his former work as a wrapper is supported by substantia l evidence in the record. AFFIRMED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge