Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Elizabeth W. Williamson appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of Williamson’s application for disability benefits. Our review of the Commissioner’s determination is limit *739 ed to evaluating whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law was applied. Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th Cir. 2015). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as - adequate to support a conclusion.” Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). We do not reweigh evidence or make credibility determinations in evaluating whether a decision is supported by substantial evidence; “[wjhere conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant is disabled,” we defer to the Commissioner’s decision. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Against this framework, we have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, the administrative record, and the joint appendix, and we discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williamson v. Berryhill, No. 5:15-cv-00070-GCM (W.D.N.C. Sept. 16, 2016). 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