Bevans

MEMORANDUM ***

Errol Bevans appeals from the judgment of the district court affirming the Commissioner’s determination that he is not disabled under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we will not recount it here.

I

We review a district court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of benefits de novo. See Moore v. Comm’r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 278 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir.2002). The Commissioner’s findings are conclusive and the decision to deny benefits will only be overturned if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016 , 1019 (9th Cir.1992). “Substantial evidence means more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1278 (9th Cir.1996) (citations omitted). It is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. In determining whether the Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, the appellate court considers the evidence as a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and that which…