UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

LINDA SEXTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.                                                                       No. 99-2530

KENNETH S. APFEL,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap.
James P. Jones, District Judge.
(CA-98-197-2)

Submitted: April 27, 2000

Decided: May 4, 2000

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges,
and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Vernon M. Williams, Erick A. Bowman, WOLFE & FARMER, Nor-
ton, Virginia, for Appellant. John M. Sacchetti, Chief Counsel, Patri-
cia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Robert S. Drum, Assistant
Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECUR-
ITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Robert P.
Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United
States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Linda Sexton appeals from the denial of Social Security disability
benefits. We affirm.

Sexton suffers from anxiety, depression, and severe back and
shoulder pain. Based on these conditions, she twice petitioned for dis-
ability insurance benefits. Her first petition was denied by an adminis-
trative law judge ("ALJ") in 1994. An ALJ denied her second petition
in 1997. The district court affirmed the denial of benefits, and this
appeal followed.

Sexton contends that the ALJ made two errors. First, she asserts the
ALJ was incorrect when he determined that her anxiety and depres-
sion were not severe. The record, however, contains substantial evi-
dence supporting the ALJ's conclusion, and we therefore affirm it.
See Richardson v. Perales, 

, 401 (1971).

Sexton's second claim is that the ALJ erred when examining the
vocational expert. Specifically, Sexton alleges that the ALJ's hypo-
thetical questions did not take the findings of Dr. Russell McKnight
into account, instead relying on findings that predated McKnight's
examination. This is incorrect; the ALJ asked the vocational expert
questions that encompassed McKnight's conclusions. While the ALJ
later determined McKnight's findings deserved little weight, the
examination of the vocational expert was thorough.

For these reasons, we affirm the district court's order upholding the
denial of disability benefits. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi-
als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional pro-
cess.

AFFIRMED

                    2