Hesman Tall v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1851
HESMAN TALL,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (8:20-cv-03698-SAG)
Submitted: May 18, 2023 Decided: May 22, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hesman Tall, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Hesman Tall appeals the district court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s
calculation of the amount of underpayment of supplemental security income due to Tall.
“In social security proceedings, a court of appeals applies the same standard of review as
does the district court. That is, a reviewing court must uphold the determination when [the
Commissioner] has applied correct legal standards and the [Commissioner’s] factual
findings are supported by substantial evidence.” Brown v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 873
F.3d 251, 267 (4th Cir. 2017) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Substantial
evidence is that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
It consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be less than a preponderance.”
Pearson v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 204, 207 (4th Cir. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).
We have reviewed the record and perceive no reversible error. The Commissioner
applied the correct legal standards in evaluating Tall’s claim for benefits, and the factual
findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
judgment upholding the Commissioner’s decision. Tall v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin.,
8:20-cv-03698-SAG (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --