Macina

MEMORANDUM **

Dora Maeina appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. We affirm.

I

Maeina claims that she should have been limited to sedentary work, not light work as the ALJ found. However, a finding that Maeina has the residual capacity for light work includes a finding that she has a capacity for sedentary work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567 (b); Blacknall v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 1179, 1181 (9th Cir.1983). The vocational expert testified that there are nearly 9,000 sedentary jobs available in the local economy that Maeina can perform despite her limitations. Maeina contends that her need for a sit/stand option necessarily precludes light work under SSR 83- *844 12, but that’s not what it says. Rather, the regulation calls for input from a vocational expert, which the ALJ obtained and considered in this case. Finally, Macina submits that the ALJ’s determination fails to take a lifting limitation into account. We disagree, because there is no evidence of any specific weight that she could not lift, or that repetitive lifting is required for the occupations identified by the vocational expert.

II

Macina maintains…