Edwards-Alexander

MEMORANDUM ***

Jo Ann Edwards-Alexander (“Edwards-Alexander”) appeals from the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of disabil *636 ity benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . “We review de novo the findings of the district court.” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir.2006) (citing Flaten v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir.1995)). A denial of benefits may be set aside only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or if it is based on legal error. Id. Robbins, 466 F.3d at 882 (citing Flaten, 44 F.3d at 1457 ). The Commissioner’s findings of fact are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g).

1. The ALJ Improperly Rejected the Mental Limitations Assessed by Examining Psychologist Dr. Ana No-gales.

The opinion of Dr. Nogales, a psychologist who examined Edwards-Alexander, was entitled to greater weight than that of Dr. Agler, a non-treating, non-examining physician. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir.1995) (citing Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir.1990) and Gallant v. Heckler,…