¶1 We affirm the district court for the following reasons:
1. The ALJ’s determination that appellant is not disabled, reached under correct legal standards, is supported by substantial evidence. Carey v. Apfel, 230 F.3d 131, 135 (5th Cir.2000). Appellant has failed to rebut *993 the Commissioner’s evidence that he is capable of performing work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. Selders v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 614, 618 (5th Cir.1990).
2. Appellant has not established that, due to his attorney’s or the ALJ’s failure to develop the record, he suffered prejudice. Ripley v. Chater. 67 F.3d 552, 557 (5th Cir.1995).
¶2 AFFIRMED.