Esther Diaz Argueta appeals the district court's decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, We review de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm. The administrative law judge did not err in finding that Argueta’s.work as a sedentary produce sorter, following an on-the-job injury, was past relevant work for purposes of step four of the sequential analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f); Stacy v. Colvin, 825 F.3d 563, 569 (9th Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>). Argueta’s sedentary sorter work from February
holding that the government bears the burden of proving voluntary consent under the totality of the circumstances holding that the defendant bears the burden of proving outside contact with the jury holding defendant bears the burden of proving an accord and satisfaction defense holding that at step four the claimant bears the burden of proving that she cannot perform her past relevant work holding that employer bears the burden of proving applicability of flsa exemptions