Sandgathe

ORDER

The Memorandum disposition filed January 8, 1996, is redesignated as a per curiam opinion.

OPINION

Joseph Sandgathe appeals from a district court judgment affirming a final decision of *980 the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Commissioner), which denied him disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-406 . The district court had jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g). We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review the judgment of the district court de novo. Ramirez v. Shalala, 8 F.3d 1449, 1451 (9th Cir.1993). The district court properly affirms the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits if it is supported by substantial evidence and based on the application of correct legal standards. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir.1995). Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. “To determine whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, we review the administrative record as a whole, weighing…