
    William Scott BAUMHOFER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-35402.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 10, 2013.
    William Scott Baumhofer, Portland, OR, pro se.
    Adrian Lee Brown, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, Thomas M. Elsberry, Esquire, Special Assistant U.S., SSA-Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

William Scott Baumhofer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for a voluntary Medicare prescription drug subsidy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 590 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Baumhofer was not eligible for a Medicare prescription drug (Part D) Low Income Subsidy based on his October 3, 2008 application because Baumhofer’s countable resources exceeded the limit established by law. See Vasquez, 572 F.3d at 591 (discussing the “substantial evidence” standard applied to Social Security benefit denials); 20 C.F.R. § 418.3101 (explaining how to become eligible for voluntary Medicare prescription drug subsidy absent “deemed eligibility”); 42 C.F.R. § 423.773 (specifying requirements for Medicare prescription drug subsidy eligibility).

Baumhofer’s contentions that the Social Security Administration failed to back-date a subsequent decision to award him the subsidy, and that it wrongfully delayed the release of documents, are unpersuasive and unsupported by the record.

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