Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that an IQ of 71 was within the range of § 12.05(C)). Obviously, the Court is not bound by any of these decisions. The Court, however, finds the reasoning in Bendt, and its reliance on Cockerham v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 492, 495 (8th Cir.1990), to be most persuasive. In Bendt, the district court noted that “[incorporating a 5 point measurement error into a claimant’s I.Q. test results would effectively expand the requisite I.Q. under listing 12.05(C) from test scores of 60 to 70 to test scores of 60 to 75.” Bendt, 940 F.Supp. at 1431. The court concluded that this would alter the range of I.Q.’s which satisfy the Listing of Impairments for Mental Retardation and Autism in contradiction of the federal regulations interpreting the Act, and the court cited Cockerham, 895 F.2d at 495-96 (<HOLDING>). Consequently, the Court finds that the ALJ’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the same inference on the same record as that here was supported by substantial evidence (B) holding that an aljs finding that a claimants iq score of 71 was not within the range of 6069 was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole (C) holding that court reviews aljs decision for substantial evidence on the record as a whole including the new evidence submitted after the determination was made (D) holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record (E) holding that a finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole if it would have been possible for a reasonable jury to reach the boards conclusion
Output (English): holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record