Opinion ID: 57058
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Your inability to get work;

Text: ... (3) The hiring practices of employers; ... (7) You would not actually be hired to do work you could otherwise do. ... 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.966(c). We agree that the proper interpretation of these exclusions is that a “claimant will also be considered not disabled if the claimant is able to do work which exists in the national economy but remains unemployed because of a criminal record.” 3 SOCIAL SECURITY LAW AND PRACTICE § 43:138 (Michael Flaherty and Wendy S. Sigillo eds.,West 2005) (citation omitted). D. Cornett’s Constitutional claims Cornett asserts that the Commissioner violated his right to due process and equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. First, Cornett claims that he was denied a fair hearing. However, he took full advantage of the administrative claims process, was provided with a hearing before an ALJ, and exercised his right to appeal to the district court and this Court. He has not identified any aspect of these proceedings that was constitutionally deficient. Our review of the record reveals that Cornett has been afforded a full and fair opportunity to present his case. His conclusory allegations to the contrary are not availing. See Kinash v. Callahan, 129 F.3d 736, 738 (5th Cir. 1997). Cornett next claims he was the victim of a “class based animus” exhibited by the ALJ. But he has not offered any evidence that he was treated differently than other Social Security claimants. Cf. Wheeler v. Miller, 168 F.3d 241, 252 10 No. 07-40318 (5th Cir. 1999) (“Generally, to establish an equal protection claim the plaintiff must prove that similarly situated individuals were treated differently.”). Finally, Cornett argues that he was the victim of ineffective assistance of counsel at his hearing before the ALJ. However, this claim does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. The Supreme Court has never recognized a constitutional right to counsel in Social Security proceedings. Brandyburg v. Sullivan, 959 F.2d 555, 562 (5th Cir. 1992). Therefore, we reject Cornett’s claim that his due process and equal protection rights were violated. We also reject his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. In conclusion, the ALJ’s decision to deny Cornett’s claim for SSI benefits is supported by substantial evidence and comports with relevant legal standards. Accordingly, the order of the district court dismissing Cornett’s complaint is AFFIRMED. 11