
    Dena WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-55958.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 4, 2015.
    
    Filed Nov. 9, 2015.
    Lawrence David Rohlfing, Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Santa Fe Springs, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Elizabeth Firer, Special Assistant U.S., Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Dorothy Schouten, Assistant U.S., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, D.W. NELSON and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dena White appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. At the fourth step of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ determined that White had the residual functional capacity to do her past relevant work. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2012), and we affirm.

White contends that the ALJ erred in finding that White’s testimony regarding her symptoms was not credible. The ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons for the credibility assessment, including inconsistencies between White’s testimony regarding her limitations and the medical opinions and record. See Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir.2008) (“Contradiction with the medical record is a sufficient basis for rejecting the claimant’s subjective testimony.”).

Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that White was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.

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