Court Opinion

ID: 9396901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 21:00:53.064188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:20.351881
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1851      Doc: 6        Filed: 05/22/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1851

        HESMAN TALL,

                            Plaintiff – Appellant,

                     v.

        COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (8:20-cv-03698-SAG)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                             Decided: May 22, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Hesman Tall, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1851      Doc: 6         Filed: 05/22/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Hesman Tall appeals the district court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s

        calculation of the amount of underpayment of supplemental security income due to Tall.

        “In social security proceedings, a court of appeals applies the same standard of review as

        does the district court. That is, a reviewing court must uphold the determination when [the

        Commissioner] has applied correct legal standards and the [Commissioner’s] factual

        findings are supported by substantial evidence.” Brown v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 873

        F.3d 251, 267 (4th Cir. 2017) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Substantial

        evidence is that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

        It consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be less than a preponderance.”

        Pearson v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 204, 207 (4th Cir. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks

        omitted).

               We have reviewed the record and perceive no reversible error. The Commissioner

        applied the correct legal standards in evaluating Tall’s claim for benefits, and the factual

        findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

        judgment upholding the Commissioner’s decision.         Tall v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin.,

        8:20-cv-03698-SAG (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the

        facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

        argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                       AFFIRMED

                                                     2