[UNPUBLISHED]

Ronald Gorman appeals the District Court’s 1 order granting the Commissioner’s motion for a remand under sentence four of 42 U.S .C. § 405(g) (1994). Initially, we reject Gorman’s assertion that the District Court’s order failed to comply with the sentence-four requirements, as the Court’s judgment sufficiently indicated it was reversing and remanding under sentence four. See Buckner v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 1006, 1010-11 (8th Cir. 2000) (holding remand order met sentence-four remand requirements where it effectively called into question substantive aspect of Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits and ordered further consideration). We also conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Commissioner’s remand motion, see Higgins v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 504, 505 (8th Cir. 2000); and, contrary to Gorman’s assertion, that the record does not support an immediate finding of disability, see Buckner, 213 F.3d at 1011. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Given the disposition of this appeal, we deny as moot Gorman’s motion to stay and the Commissioner’s related motion.