Nelda Chesseman appeals the district court’s decision affirming the determination by the Commissioner of Social Security that she is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Chesseman argues that the administrative law judge’s determination that she was not disabled is based on errors of law and is not supported by the evidence.

Having reviewed the record and briefs on appeal, we conclude that the administrative law judge applied the correct legal standard in determining whether Chesseman was disabled, and the administrative law judge’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.