Hennon

MEMORANDUM ***

Stanley Hennon appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) in his denial of Hennon’s application for social security disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-33 , and Supplemental Security, Income disability benefits under Title XVI of the Act, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381 -83f. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s decision to uphold the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. See Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir.1998). The Commissioner’s findings may be set aside if they are based on legal error or are unsupported by substantial evidence. See id. We affirm.

First, we have consistently held that “questions of credibility ... are functions solely of the Secretary.” Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir.1982) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also Allen v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 577 , 580 n. 1 (9th Cir.1985). Our review of the record convinces us that the district court properly held that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) provided clear and convincing reasons for…