provided specific, clear, and co symptoms from his diabetes and coronary artery disease were well-controlled with medications, which belied his testimony that the symptoms were disabling. For example, in a May 2011 examination, treating physician Dr. George Sibley found that Willens was doing “extremely well” with his diabetes and coronary heat disease, that Willens should continue with his medication, and that his diabetes was well-controlled. Also, the ALJ properly noted that although Willens testified that the side effects from nitroglycerin, which treated his heart condition, gave him disabling recurring headaches and drowsiness, the treating notes and records lacked evidence supporting those complaints. See Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (<HOLDING>). The ALJ reasonably cited a third reason for
holding that taxes are not private property that can be physically taken by the government holding that impairments that can be controlled effectively with medications are not disabling holding that rule 35a can be used to challenge sentences that are not authorized by the judgment of conviction holding that controlled substances defined by their chemical composition can only be identified through chemical analysis and not through visual inspection holding that where a defendant controlled the board of directors it is manifest then that there can be no expectation that the corporation would sue him and if it did it can hardly be said that the prosecution of the suit would be entrusted to proper hands