NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 21-1677

_______________

COLT RUSSELL LAMOUREUX,

Appellant

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

_______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 1-20-cv-00665)

Magistrate Judge: Honorable Martin C. Carlson

_______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a):

December 7, 2021

_______________

Before: SHWARTZ, PORTER, and FISHER,

Circuit Judges.

(Filed: December 10, 2021)

______________

OPINION

______________

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding 

precedent.
2

PORTER, Circuit Judge.

Colt Russell Lamoureux asks us to vacate and remand the Commissioner of Social 

Security’s order concluding he is not entitled to disability benefits under the Social 

Security Act. He brought his case before the District Court without success and now 

appeals. He raises several legal and evidentiary challenges, but none have merit. So we 

will affirm the District Court.

I

Lamoureux injured his hips and back during a training exercise while serving in 

the U.S. Army. His injury restricts his mobility and makes him unable to perform his 

prior work. 

Claiming that he was disabled, Lamoureux sought disability benefits under Title II 

of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1). The Social Security Act defines 

disability as an “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any 

medically determinable physical or mental impairment.” Id. § 423(d)(1)(A). The Act, as 

amended in 1967, provides that the impairment must be “of such severity that” the 

applicant: 

[I]s not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, 

education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial 

gainful work which exists in the national economy, regardless of whether 

such work exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a 

specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he 

applied for work. For purposes of the preceding sentence (with respect to any 

individual), “work which exists in the national economy” means work which 

exists in significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives 

or in several regions of the country.

Id. § 423(d)(2)(A); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.960(c)(1).
3

The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) who heard Lamoureux’s claim concluded

that despite his impairments, Lamoureux had the capacity to perform some sedentary 

work that involves limited physical activity. An impartial vocational expert appointed by 

the ALJ then testified that given his limitations, Lamoureux could perform work that 

exists in the national economy, including the jobs of table worker (8,766 U.S. jobs), bond 

semiconductor (4,535 U.S. jobs), and security systems monitor (22,604 jobs). Relying on 

this testimony, the ALJ concluded Lamoureux could still perform work that exists in the 

national economy and so was not disabled.

Lamoureux sought review from the Appeals Council, an administrative body that 

reviews ALJ decisions. Smith v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1765, 1772–73 (2019). The Council 

declined to review the decision, so the ALJ’s decision become the final decision of the

Commissioner of Social Security. Id. Lamoureux then sued in federal court, but the 

District Court affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. This appeal followed.

II

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The District Court had jurisdiction 

under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

We review questions of law de novo. Sanfilippo v. Barnhart, 325 F.3d 391, 393 

(3d Cir. 2003). We review the Commissioner’s findings of fact for “substantial 

evidence.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is a deferential standard. Brown v. 

Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011). It requires only “evidence [that] a reasonable 

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 

1148, 1154 (2019) (quotation marks omitted). In reviewing for substantial evidence, we 
4

“are not permitted to weigh the evidence or substitute our own conclusions for that of the 

fact-finder.” Burns v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 113, 118 (3d Cir. 2002). 

III

A

Lamoureux first argues that the Commissioner’s finding that Lamoureux could

still perform work which exists in the national economy must be set aside as a matter of 

law because the Commissioner relied solely on national-level data. The Commissioner 

has a legal duty, Lamoureux says, to introduce regional-level data showing enough jobs 

exist in several regions or the region where the applicant lives. Lamoureux infers this

requirement from the definition of “work which exists in the national economy” as “work 

which exists in significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in 

several regions of the country.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A); see also 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1566(a)–(b) (same).

We disagree. Neither the statute nor the rules establish specific evidentiary 

requirements, and their text does not support Lamoureux’s inference that regional-level 

data is required in every disability proceeding. The first sentence of section 423(d)(2)(A)

provides that so long as an applicant can perform “any other kind of substantial, gainful 

work which exists in the national economy,” the applicant is not disabled. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 423(d)(2)(A). “Any other kind” of work is qualitative, not quantitative. Read in context, 

the second sentence modifies the qualitative test by prohibiting reliance on jobs that exist 

“only in very limited numbers” or in such few far-flung locations that the jobs cannot be 

considered “work which exists in the national economy.” Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566(b).
5

Nothing in this modest limit compels the Commissioner to introduce regional-level job

data in every disability proceeding as a matter of law.

The sole question then is whether national data alone is “substantial evidence.” 

The ALJ elicited adequate testimony by the vocational expert to find that jobs existed in 

the national economy that were appropriate for Lamoureux. When presented with a 

hypothetical individual of the Lamoureux’s age, education, past work experience, and 

limitations, the vocational expert testified that such a person would be unable to do any of 

the claimant’s past work. The vocational expert then identified nearly 36,000 jobs in the 

national economy that would be available for someone with Lamoureux’s functional 

capacity. In ruling that Lamoureux was not disabled because he could make a successful 

adjustment to other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, the 

ALJ indicated that the conclusion was reached “[b]ased on the testimony of the 

vocational expert.” App. 47. The logical conclusion, then, is that the ALJ, hearing the 

vocational expert’s testimony about the number of jobs available in the national 

economy, found that those jobs constituted work existing in significant numbers in the 

national economy. In this case, we cannot say no reasonable mind would accept the 

testimony as probative enough to sustain the Commissioner’s burden of proof, as nothing

suggests that jobs like security systems monitor are unusually clustered in “relatively few 

locations” far from the Mid-Atlantic region where Lamoureux lives. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1566(b). 

Lamoureux also argues that the number of jobs identified is too trivial in the 

context of the entire U.S. economy. But an ALJ’s factual findings as to what number of 
6

jobs amounts to “very limited numbers”—how few jobs is too few to constitute “work 

which exists in the national economy”—are “conclusive” in judicial review of the 

benefits decision so long as they are supported by “substantial evidence.” Biestek, 139 S. 

Ct. at 1151–52 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). We find nothing unreasonable about the 

Commissioner’s conclusion that Lamoureux can perform “work that exist[s] in

significant numbers in the national economy” based on nearly 36,000 jobs. App. 47. The 

ALJ’s conclusion that 35,905 available jobs across three positions constituted work 

existing in significant numbers in the national economy is reasonable and supported by 

the record. While 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566 does not define “significant numbers,” the 

vocational expert’s testimony that nearly 36,000 jobs were available in the national 

economy supports a finding that work existed in significant numbers. See Taskila v. 

Comm’r Soc. Sec., 819 F.3d 902, 906 (6th Cir. 2016) (concluding there was no reversible 

error where substantial evidence supported conclusion that claimant could perform jobs 

numbering 6,000 nationally); Johnson v. Chater, 108 F.3d 178, 180 (8th Cir. 1997) 

(holding that expert testimony that there were 10,000 jobs nationally was sufficient to 

show a significant number). So we will not disturb the Commissioner’s reasonable 

finding here. 

B

Lamoureux next ups the ante and asks us to hold the phrase “significant numbers”

in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566(a) unconstitutional under the “void for vagueness” doctrine. The

rule’s use of “significant numbers” parrots 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A). So if we held 20 

C.F.R. § 404.1566(a) void, we would necessarily be required to hold the definition of 
7

disability in 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A) void too. We decline to hold this half-century-old 

statutory definition void. 

The void-for-vagueness doctrine has no application to public-assistance provisions 

like section 423. Nyeholt v. Sec’y of Veterans Affs., 298 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2002);

see also Woodruff v. United States, 954 F.2d 634, 642 (11th Cir. 1992) (holding that a 

void-for-vagueness challenge was “wholly without merit” where the provision did not 

“attempt to guide conduct” but provided an interpretive rule for an agency making 

benefits determinations). The doctrine is grounded in the need for “fair notice” of a law’s 

prohibitions when the law includes severe sanctions like imprisonment. See Sessions v. 

Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204, 1212 (2018) (plurality opinion); id. at 1225 (Gorsuch, J., 

concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). Dimaya is the Supreme Court’s latest

application of the void-for-vagueness doctrine. There, the Supreme Court applied the 

doctrine to a criminal statute in a civil alien-removal context. But the plurality did so only 

because of the severe nature of removal, which it analogized to “banishment or exile.”

Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. at 1213 (quoting Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan, 333 U.S. 6, 10 (1948)).

Justice Gorsuch, concurring, said the doctrine ought to apply to civil proscriptions 

imposing “similarly severe sanctions” like confiscating a home or stripping someone of a 

vital business license. Id. at 1231. Section 423(d)(2)(A) is not a proscription backed by

severe sanctions, so it cannot be void for vagueness. Extending the void-for-vagueness

doctrine to public-assistance statutes would divorce the doctrine entirely from the

common-law tradition of fair notice that Justice Gorsuch identified as the source of the 

doctrine’s legitimacy. Id. at 1225. We decline to take that step.
8

C

We finally address—and reject—Lamoureux’s challenge to the Commissioner’s 

finding that Lamoureux had the physical capacity to perform a limited range of sedentary 

work. Lamoureux contends that a single work-performance evaluation compels a 

conclusion that he is not able to work full time. The Commissioner explained that this

evaluation was unreliable because it was done a year after the expiration of the relevant 

dates for disability coverage, it relied on an unexplained methodology, and it was 

inconsistent with the applicant’s “own testimony regarding his wide-range of activities of 

daily living, including caring for his small children, work on the farm, and hunting and 

fishing.” App 44. Lamoureux says nothing to rebut this. The Commissioner also

discussed several other timely and more reliable assessments from state agencies and 

Veterans Affairs that supported a finding that Lamoureux could perform a limited range 

of sedentary work during the relevant period. Given all of this, a reasonable mind could

find the Commissioner’s finding was supported by the evidence.

* * *

The Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits was lawful and supported by 

substantial evidence, so we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.