
    Elijah LANG, Plaintiff — Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant— Appellee.
    No. 08-50351
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 30, 2008.
    Mary Ellen Felps, Austin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    James William Jennings, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendanb-Appellee.
    
      Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant Elijah Lang appeals the decision of the district court affirming the finding of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) that Lang is able to perform work for such sedentary level jobs as ticket seller, cashier, or assembler, for which there are a substantial number of available jobs in the state and national economy. Based on those findings, the ALJ ruled that Lang is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. In the course of the deliberations at that level, the ALJ found Lang not credible. The Appeals Council denied review, after which Lang sought review in the district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The district court affirmed the ALJ, and Lang timely filed a notice of appeal.

We have carefully reviewed the entire record on appeal, including the determinations of the ALJ and the district court, and the law as set forth in the appellate briefs of the parties and determined by our independent research.

Considering the well-known standard of appellate review of cases such as this, i.e., whether substantial evidence in the record viewed in its entirety supports the decision of the Commissioner and comports with relevant legal standards, we are convinced that neither the ALJ nor the district court committed reversible error in ruling for the Commissioner and against Lang on the issues properly preserved for appellate review. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court affirming the ALJ and the Commissioner is, in all respects,

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     