
    Thomas KENYON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-35685.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 7, 2013.
    
    Filed Nov. 13, 2013.
    Tim Wilborn, Wilborn Law Office, PC, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Adrian Lee Brown, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, Richard Michael Rodriguez, Esquire, Assistant Regional Counsel, SSA-Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, Henry E. Velte, III, Social Security Administration, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: M. SMITH and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and PRO, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Philip M. Pro, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Thomas Kenyon appeals a district court judgment upholding the Commissioner’s denial of an application for Social Security disability insurance benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

1. Any error by the administrative law judge (ALJ) in not including the simple one-two step instructions limitation in the hypothetical question to the vocational expert was harmless. The vocational expert and ALJ identified an occupation that Kenyon can perform — bindery-machine feeder — that exists in significant numbers nationally or regionally. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1043-44 (9th Cir.2008); Barker v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 882 F.2d 1474, 1479 (9th Cir.1989).

2. The ALJ did not improperly reject the opinions of Kenyon’s treating physicians. The ALJ expressly noted that Kenyon’s physicians issued conflicting medical reports and reconciled those inconsistencies. See Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir.1989).

3. The ALJ considered Kenyon’s headaches when assessing residual functional capacity and properly discounted Kenyon’s statements about the limiting effect of his migraines. See Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir.2007); Hoopai v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir.2007).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     