because new evidence has come to light that was not available to the claimant at the time of the administrative proceeding and that evidence might have changed the outcome of the prior proceeding. The statute provides that following a sentence six remand, the Secretary must return to the district court to “file with the court any such additional or modified findings of fact and decision, and a transcript of the additional record and testimony upon which his action in modifying or affirming was based.” Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at 98, 111 S.Ct. at 2163 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)); see also Travis v. Sullivan, 985 F.2d 919, 923-24 (7th Cir.1993) (remanding case on plaintiffs motion for the taking of additional medical evidence); cf. Labrie v. Secretary of HHS, 976 F.2d 779, 782 (1st Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Under a sentence six remand, the district
holding the issue of standing is waived if not asserted at the district court level holding that because the district court does not retain jurisdiction sentencefour social security remands do not fall within the scope of hudson and noting that the court had limited hudson to a narrow class of qualifying administrative proceedings where the district court retains jurisdiction of the civil action pending the completion of the administrative proceedings internal quotation marks and citation omitted recognizing the retention of jurisdiction at the district court level in sentence six remands recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard holding that the defendants sentence was based on the career offender guidelines despite the fact that the district court calculated an offense level pursuant to the crack guidelines