* Effective March 31, 1995, the functions of the Secr etary of Health and

Human Services in social security cases were transf erred to the Commissioner of Social Security. P.L. No. 103-296. In the text we refer to the Secretary because she was the appropriate party at the time of the un derlying administrative decision.

** At the parties’ request, the case is unanimously or dered submitted without oral argument pursuant to the applicable rules. Th is order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 10/9/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JAMES E. JACKSON, SR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. SHIRLEY S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, *

Defendant-Appellee. No. 96-5021 (D.C. No. 95-C-0068-J) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Before PORFILIO , LOGAN , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
Claimant James E. Jackson appeals from the magistrate judge’s order affirming the denial of his application for social security disability benefits and-2-

supplemental security income by the Secretary of He alth and Human Services (Secretary). After his claim was denied administratively, a hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ) who deniedbenefits at step four of the five-step evaluation process. See Williams v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748, 750-51 (10th Cir. 1988) (discussing five steps). The ALJ conclu ded that claimant could perform his past work as a truck driver. The Appea ls Council considered additional mental evaluation evidence but, neverthe less, denied review. On appeal to the district court, the parties consented to submit the case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). T he magistrate judge upheld the Secretary’s decision, and claimant now appeals to this court. On appeal, claimant contends that the ALJ failed to evaluate properly his subjective complaints of pain, the medical evidence , his mental impairments, and his residual functional capacity (RFC). He also ma intains that the analysis of his ability to do past relevant work was flawed, and th e ALJ posed an improper hypothetical question to the vocational expert. We review the Secretary’s decision to determine whe ther the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence based onthe entire record, and to ascertain whether she applied the correct legal sta ndards. Castellano v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs. , 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir. 1994). Substantial evidence is “‘such relevant evidence as a reasonabl e mind might accept as-3-

adequate to support a conclusion.’” Soliz v. Chate r , 82 F.3d 373, 375 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Richardson v. Perales , 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)(further quotation omitted)). We do not reweigh the evidence. Hamilt on v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs. , 961 F.2d 1495, 1498 (10th Cir. 1992). Claimant raises here two issues not presented to th e district court: (1) the ALJ’s evaluation of his RFC did not consider what w ork claimant could do on a sustained basis, and (2) the ALJ improperly analyze d claimant’s ability to do his past relevant work. Because those arguments were n ot presented to the district court, we decline to address them. See Crow v. Shalala , 40 F.3d 323, 324 (10th Cir. 1994)(“Absent compelling reasons, we do not co nsider arguments that were not presented to the district court.”). As to the remaining claims, we have carefully revie wed the record on appeal, as well as the briefs submitted by the part ies. We are aware of Winfrey v. Chater , 92 F.3d 1017 (10th Cir. 1996), but find it distin guishable. Applying the standards set out above, we conclude, for substanti ally the reasons stated in the November 30, 1995 order by the magistrate judge, th at substantial evidence supports the determination that claimant is not dis abled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. AFFIRMED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT-4- Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge