MEMORANDUM **

The district court didn’t abuse its discretion in determining that Roxbury is not entitled to an immediate award of benefits because, even crediting the state doctors’ opinions as true, it’s not “clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled” given the state doctors’ conclusion that Roxbury had no limitations on handling or fingering. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1292 (9th Cir. 1996). Moreover, there are “sufficient unanswered questions in the record that the district court’s determination to remand the case for further proceedings was not an abuse of discretion.” Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Strauss v. Comm’r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 635 F.3d 1135, 1137-138 (9th Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED.