MEMORANDUM **

Edmond H. Galton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

Contrary to Galton’s contentions, the Administrate Law Judge’s decision did not go beyond the scope of the remand order because, as the district court had instructed, the Administrative Law Judge on remand determined whether there was any work in the economy that Galton could perform in light of all his impairments, including dyslexia.

Galton’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.