#### Jacquetta NACOSTE-HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-35022

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 4, 2017 *

*379Jacquetta Nacoste-Harris, Portland, OR, pro se.

Martha A. Boden, Special Assistant U.S., Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, Janice Elaine Hebert, Assistant U.S., DOJ-USAO, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.

Before: CLIFTON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,

MEMORANDUM **

Jacquetta Nacoste-Harris appeals pro se the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner .of Social Security’s denial of Nacoste-Harris’s application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We review de novo, *Ghanim v. Colvin,*763 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.

Nacoste-Harris contends that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) discriminated against her because she is a former addict and was using marijuana at the time of her hearing. We disagree. The ALJ did not deny Nacoste-Harris’s claim on the basis of her past or present drug use. Rather, the ALJ found that Nacoste-Har-ris’s “history of crack cocaine dependence and current marijuana abuse is not a material factor in this decision.” As a result, Nacoste-Harris’s allegations do not show that the ALJ’s behavior reflected a clear inability to render fair judgment, and they are not sufficient to rebut the presumption that an ALJ is unbiased. *Bayliss v. Barnhart,*427 F.3d 1211, 1214-15 (9th Cir. 2005).

Construing Nacoste-Harris’s pleadings liberally, *Garmon v. Cty. of Los Angeles,*828 F.3d 837, 846 (9th Cir. 2016), she contends that the ALJ discounted her testimony about the severity of her symptoms because she is a former addict. The ALJ did not mention Nacoste-Harris’s former cocaine use or her current marijuana use as a basis for finding her symptom testimony less than fully credible. The ALJ did, however, consider Nacoste-Har-ris’s drug use in formulating her residual functional capacity (“RFC”), and the ALJ included in the RFC greater limitations, in part, to accommódate Nacoste-Harris’s drug use. This was not only permissible, but required. *See Robbins v. Soc. See. Admin.,*466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006) (“In determining a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record, including, *inter alia,*medical records, lay evidence, and ‘the effects of symptoms, including pain, that are reasonably attributed to a medically determinable impairment.’” (quoting SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5)). Because the ALJ’s inclusion of additional RFC limita-*380tions benefits, rather than prejudices, Na-coste-Harris, any error in discussing her drug use is harmless. *Cf. Johnson v. Shalala,*60 F.3d 1428, 1436 n.9 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding harmless an ALJ’s “overinclusion” of limiting factors in the hypothetical posed to a vocational expert because it benefitted the claimant).

Finally, Nacoste-Harris attached additional evidence to her opening brief. Remand under 42 U.S.C., § 405(g) is not appropriate because Nacoste-Harris has not shown a reasonable possibility of a different outcome if the evidence had been presented to and considered by the agency. *Booz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,*734 F.2d 1378, 1381 (9th Cir. 1984). Four of the pages of Nacoste-Harris’s new evidence document her substance abuse treatment in 2007, and her subsequent abstinence from cocaine. As discussed above, the ALJ acknowledged Nacoste-Harris’s continued abstinence from cocaine use and concluded that her drug use was immaterial to the non-disability determination. The other two pages of new evidence are a report from a September 2015 MRI of Nacoste-Harris’s-cervical spine. Although “reports containing observations made after the period for disability are relevant to assess the claimant’s disability,” *Smith v. Bowen,*849 F.2d 1222, 1225 (9th Cir.1988), Nacoste-Harris offers no argument for how this new report, which post-dates the ALJ’s decision by nearly two years, is material to the ALJ’s determination. As a result, Nacoste-Harris has not carried her burden of demonstrating materiality. *Mayes v. Massanari,*276 F.3d 453, 462 (9th Cir. 2001).

AFFIRMED.

**

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.

ses Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).