Penor v. Astrue, No. 10-cv-1056-HZ, 2011 WL 6778767 *13 (D. Or. Dec. 23, 2011). See, e.g., Schwanz v. Astrue, 10-cv-795-HZ, 2011 WL 4501943 *8-9 (D. Or. Sept. 28, 2011), Jaynes v. Astrue, 10-cv-568-BR, 2011 WL 1630808 *7 (D. Or. Apr. 29, 2011), Nelson v. Astrue, 10-cv-18-MO, 2011 WL 39826 *7 (D. Or. Jan. 5, 2011), Rakes v. Astrue, 09-cv-821-BR, 2011 WL 11175 *7 (D. Or. Jan. 3, 2011). F. SSR 96-8P

Id. This court has repeatedly relied upon such reasoning in rejecting this argument. Jaynes v. Astrue, 2011 WL 1630808 at * 7 (D. Or. Apr. 29, 2011); Nelson v. Astrue, 2011 WL 39826 at *7 (D. Or. Jan. 5, 2011); Rakes v. Astrue, 2011 WL 11175 at *7 (D. Or. Jan. 3, 2011). The instant case again presents the same facts that were litigated in Crane.