# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 40401 Summary Calendar

**____________ Bradley Thomas Boone,** 
Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus
**Martin O’Malley,** Commissioner of Social Security **; Kelly Matthews,**  Administrative Law Judge **,** Defendants —Appellees

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 3:21

- CV

- 279

**______________________________** Before **Clement ,**  **Duncan ,**  and **Douglas ,**  Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *****
In 2016, Bradley Boone filed an application with the Social Security Administration for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits. When his application was denied, Boone requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ ). The ALJ, Kelly Mathews,

co nducted the Social Security Administration’s five

- step evaluation process

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir . R.**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 29, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-40401 Document: 00517017135 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2023No. 23

- 40401

2 for determining whether an individual is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The ALJ found that Boone (1) had “not engaged in substantial gainful activity” since the date of his alleged disability ; (2) was severely medically impaired ; (3) did not have an impairment that met the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; (4) did not have the residual functional capacity t o perform his past work as an airplane pilot; and (5) did have the residual functional capacity to perform “the full range of sedentary work,” and thus was “capable of making a successful adjustment to other work that exists in significant numbers in the n ational economy.” The ALJ therefore concluded that Boone was not disabled. Boone requested review of the ALJ’s decision, but his request was denied by the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council. Boone then sought judicial review of the Social Sec urity Administration’s decision

. The district court determined that the record “lack[ed] substa ntial evidence to support the ALJ ’ s finding that Boone [was] capable of performing sedentary work ,” and therefore reversed the decision of the ALJ and remanded t he case to the Social Security Administration ’s Appeals Council

. Boone v. Saul , No. 3:19

- CV

- 00175, 2020 WL 2150523, at *3

– 4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2020), report and recommendation adopted , 2020 WL 2130992 (S.D. Tex. May 5, 2020). The Appeals Council, in turn, remanded back to the ALJ for a new hearing and decision. ALJ Matthews held a new hearing on November 3, 2020, and issued a new decision on December 17, 2020. The ALJ’s new five

- step evaluation reached the same conclusions as her original evaluation with t he exception of Step 5 , at which the ALJ recognized that Boone could only “sit for 30 minutes at a time and then would need to stand for 5

- 10 minutes before resuming a sitting position” but nonetheless found that Boone had the residual functional capacity to perform at least some sedentary work and that such Case: 23-40401 Document: 00517017135 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2023No. 23

- 40401

3 jobs were available

. So, ALJ Matthews again held that Boone was not disabled. The Appeals Council again denied Boone’s request to review the ALJ’s decision, and Boone again returned to federal court. 1 This time, the district court gra n ted summary judgment to the Social Security Administration. Boone appeals , pro se

. Our review of social security disability claims is “ exceedingly deferential and limited to two inquiries: whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, and whether the ALJ applied the proper legal standards when evaluating the evidence.” Taylor v. Astrue , 706 F.3d 600, 602 (5th Cir. 2012). Altho ugh Boone raises multiple issues on appeal, only two fall within this scope

. First, Boone contends that ALJ Matthews lacked substantial evidence in support of her de terminat ion that Boone was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. We disagree. As the district court explained, “th e ALJ thoroughly reviewed Boone ’ s medical records and the medical opinions therein ,” and this documentation “ provide [d] substantial evidence that supports the ALJ ’ s decision .” Second, Boone claims that ALJ Matthews’ decision contradicted the factual findings and legal conclusions in the district court’s remand decision. But i t did not. Again, the district court’s decision explains why : [The district court] previously

. . . remand [ed] because there

was no t substantial evidence in the record “to support a sedentary exertional level.” Specifically, [the court] found that although the record supported “that Boone can sit for a

**_____________________**

1 Boone filed in federal court in October 2021

— after the ALJ’s December 2020 decision but before the Appeals Council’s September 2022 denial . The district court forgave Boone’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies before fil ing suit due to “extraordinary circumstances.” Case: 23-40401 Document: 00517017135 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/29/2023No. 23

- 40401

4 maximum of 30 minutes,” the record did not support “that Boone can sit six hours of an eight

- hour workday,” which is what “sedentary work” implies. On remand, ALJ Matthews fully addressed this issue by confirming with a vocational expert that there exist sedentary occupations in the national economy in significant numbers that would acco mmodate someone like Boone who can sit for only 30 minutes at a time

. So, far from contradicting the findings in the district court’s remand order, the ALJ’s subsequent decision faithfully adhered to them and considered whether appropriate occupations were available that could accommodate Boone’s limitation. As for Boone’s remaining claims on appeal

— including, among other contentions, that the district court violated Boone’s civil rights in adjudicating his case , that ALJ Matthews perjured h erself , and that the district court attempted to cover up ALJ Matthews’ perjury

— we find the m to be outside of the limited scope of our review and, in any event, meritless.

**AFFIRMED**

. Case: 23-40401 Document: 00517017135 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/29/2023