MEMORANDUM ***

Thomas Kenyon appeals a district court judgment upholding the Commissioner’s denial of an application for Social Security disability insurance benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

1. Any error by the administrative law judge (ALJ) in not including the simple one-two step instructions limitation in the hypothetical question to the vocational expert was harmless. The vocational expert and ALJ identified an occupation that Kenyon can perform — bindery-machine feeder — that exists in significant numbers nationally or regionally. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1043-44 (9th Cir. 2008); Barker v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 882 F.2d 1474, 1479 (9th Cir. 1989).

2. The ALJ did not improperly reject the opinions of Kenyon’s treating physicians. The ALJ expressly noted that Ken *766 yon’s physicians issued conflicting medical reports and reconciled those inconsistencies. See Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989).

3. The ALJ considered Kenyon’s headaches when assessing residual functional capacity and properly discounted Kenyon’s statements about the limiting effect of his migraines. See Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007); Hoopai v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.