and Soc. Sec. R. 96-8p (1996) set forth the general rule that determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity requires consideration of whether a claimant is able to perform work duties on a continuous basis. Hence, a valid residual functional capacity finding must be based on this overarching principle. Generally, there is no requirement that an ALJ make an explicit “regular and continuing basis” finding absent evidence of a waxing and waning nature of the claimant’s symptoms, such that the impairments interfere with the claimant’s ability to maintain employment on a continuing basis. Singletary v. Bowen, 798 F.2d 818 (5th Cir.1986) (mental impair ments); Watson v. Barnhart, 288 F.3d 212 (5th Cir.2002) (physical impairments); Frank v. Barnhart, 326 F.3d 618 (5th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, when the record contains no
holding it is a claimants responsibility to first establish waxing and waning of symptoms holding that where the defendant pleaded guilty subsequently denied his guilt and attempted to withdraw his plea and then attempted to minimize the significance of his statements at sentencing by averring that he accepted responsibility for the amount that me and the government have agreed to and offering a statement accepting responsibility  were insufficient to demonstrate acceptance of responsibility recognizing the federal responsibility to indian people and finding that congress has assumed the responsibility for the protection and preservation of indian tribes and their resources none of which is more vital  than their children holding that it is not holding that trial courts determination of whether defendant accepted responsibility should not be disturbed unless it is without foundation