*

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 13, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-51408

Summary Calendar

 

DIANA SEINERA,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

 DefendantAppellee.

----------------------------------------------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-03-CV-178-RP 

----------------------------------------------------------

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Diana Seinera appeals from the district court’s denial with prejudice of her social security

disability complaint. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Seinera argues that the record does not contain

substantial evidence to support the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) finding that she was not

disabled. She further argues that the ALJ improperly evaluated her credibilty. Finally, Seinera argues
 

 

-2-

that the ALJfailed to determine whether she could maintain employment in accordance with Watson

v. Barnhart, 288 F.3d 212 (5th Cir. 2002).

This courtreviewstheCommissioner’s decisionfor whethersubstantial evidence in the record

supports the decision and whether the Commissioner applied the proper legal standard. Greenspan

v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir. 1994). Substantial must be more than a mere scintilla, but it

need not be a preponderance. Fraga v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 1296, 1302 (5th Cir. 1987). In applying

this standard, this court may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the

Commissioner. Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995). 

As part of her challenge to a lack ofsubstantial evidence to support the ALJ’sfinding, Seinera

contends that the ALJ’s findings were inconsistent. Her argument is without merit. The record is

replete with evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision that Seinera was not disabled and could find

employment as a real estate receptionist or clerk. Substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s

determination existsin the formoftestimonybytwo vocational experts, a medical expert’stestimony,

and medical evidence taken over the period of alleged disability. See Fraga,

810 F.2d at 1302.

Similarly, Seinera’s challenge to the ALJ’s credibility finding is not supported by the record.

The ALJ found, and medical records and testimony establish, that although Seinera complained that

her memory loss was severe and disabling, the extent of Seinera’s complaints did not rise to a level

of impairment recognized by the Social Security Administration as a disabling condition. See

Chambliss v. Massanari, 269 F.3d 520, 522 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Finally, Seinera’s argument that the ALJ failed to properly consider whether she could

maintain employment in accordance with
 

 

-3-

Watson is unavailing. Seinera does not assert that her back and memory conditions are intermittent

in nature. Cf., Frank v. Barnhart, 326 F.3d 618, 619 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.