Wilma F. Bankston appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. Bankston alleged disability from anxiety, depression, diabetes, arthritis, headaches, a seizure disorder, and short-term memory loss. After a hearing, an administrative law judge determined that Bankston’s severe impairments — major depression, Type II diabetes with neuropathy, arthritis, and obesity — did not meet or equal the requirements of any listing, alone or combined, and that her subjective complaints were not entirely credible. The ALJ concluded further, relying on the testimony of a vocational expert and using the Medical Vocational Guidelines as a framework, that even though Bankston’s residual functional capacity precluded her past relevant work, she could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers. The Appeals Council denied review, and the district court affirmed. Having conducted careful de novo review of the record and the parties’ submissions on appeal, we agree with the district court that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the denial of benefits. See Tilley v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 675, 679 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). We reject without further discussion the arguments in Bankston’s counseled brief, because they are unsupported by the record, are legally unsupported, or are not sufficiently developed.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.