N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JASON E. DEOC AM PO, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C OM M ISSIONER

OF SOC IAL SEC UR ITY, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-16116 D.C . No. 2:09-c v-03076-EFB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia E dm und F. B re nna

n, M a gistra

t e Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 16, 2014 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, GR

AB ER , a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Ja son De Oc am

po a ppe a ls from

the distric t c o urt’ s grant of sum m ary judgm e nt to theC om

m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity . The a dm inistra tive la wjudge 

# FIL ED JAN 21 2014 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

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

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).(ALJ) de nie d De Oc am po’ s a pplic ation for supplem e nta l se c urity inc om e , a

nd the Appe a ls C ounc il de c line d to re ope n De Oc a m po’ s c a se . De Oc am po a rgue s tha t a De pa rtm e nt of Ve t e rans Affa irs (VA) disa bility ra ting—issue d a fte r the ALJ’ s de c ision— c o nstitute s ne w a nd m ate ria l e vide nc e re quiring a

re m and for a

he aring be fore the ALJ. Se e Hoa Hong Van v. Barnhart , 483 F.3d 600, 605 (9th C ir. 2007). De Oc am po ha s fa ile d to show tha

t the re is a

“ re a sona ble possibility

” tha t, ha d the ALJ c onside re d the VA rating, there sult of the p roc e e dings would ha ve be e n diffe re n t . May e

s v . Massanari , 276 F.3d 453, 462 (9th C i r. 2001). Although De Oc am po c la i m s tha

t the ALJ c onfuse d his e nc ounte r with polic e with the a lle ge d shooting of his c ousin, theVA’ s de c ision doe s not distinguish be

twe e n the se two e ve nts. M ore ove r, be fore the distric t c ourt, De Oc a m po c onc e de d tha

t the VA’ s de c ision wa s ba se d on the sa m e m e dic a l inform at ion pre se n t e d to theALJ, a nd he is bound by

those c onc e s sions. Se e Re y noso v . Giurbino , 462 F.3d 1099, 1110 (9th C ir. 2006). De Oc am po’ s a rgum e nt tha

t Luna v . Astrue , 623 F.3d 1032 (9th C ir. 2010), re quire s a re m and in this c a se is simila rly una va iling. Luna wa s c onc e rne d with c onflic ting disa

bility de te rm inations within the samea ge nc y , id. at 1034, whe re a s De Oc a m po’ s c a se pre se n ts diffe re nt disa bility de c isions by diffe re n t a ge nc ie s. Luna is ina

pposite . 2De Oc am po a lso c o nte nds tha

t Vale ntine

v . C ommissione r

Soc ial Se c urity Administration , 574 F.3d 685 (9th C ir. 2009), re quire s the ALJ, in pa rtic ula r, to c onside r the VA’ s rating, re ga rdle ss of whe n the VA issue d its de c ision. B ut ne ithe r Vale ntine nor this c irc uit’ s re late d pre c e de nts re quire the ALJ— a s oppose d to the Appe a ls C ounc il— to c onside r a

VA rating issue d

afte r the ALJ’ s de c ision, and the Appe a ls C ounc il did c onside r the VA rating in this c a se . In sum , De Oc a m po ha s not shown tha

t the a ge nc y ’ s de c ision la c ke d substa ntia l e vide nc e or c onta ine d le ga l e rror. S

e e Bay liss v . Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1214 n.1 (9th C ir. 2005). B e c a

use De Oc a

m po fa i l e d to ra ise his re m a ining a rgum e nts be fore the distric t c o urt, the y

are wa ive d. Abogados v . AT& T, Inc . , 223 F.3d 932, 937 (9th C ir. 2000). W e de ny

his re que sts for judic ia l notic e a s m oot. AFFIRM E D.

3