Stacey Stembridge appeals his sentence of 87 months of imprisonment for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(B)(ii). Stem-bridge argues that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.

Stembridge argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to consider whether he was entitled to a reduction of sentence for his substantial assistance, but this argument lacks merit. The district court “may depart from the guidelines ... [u]pon motion of the government stating that the defendant has provided substantial assistance,” and the comments to the provision state that “[substantial weight should be given to the government’s evaluation of the extent of the defendant’s assistance.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 & cmt. n. 3 (2009). The government did not move for Stembridge to receive a lesser sentence and, when the district court discussed the matter with the parties, the government stated that Stembridge “did not qualify” for the reduction because he did not “cooperate[ ] [until] after [he was] in federal custody.” The district court determined that a sentence at the top of the guideline range was necessary because Stembridge’s “Criminal History Category underrepresented] the seriousness of his criminal history” and that “[a] lower sentence would not be sufficient.” See United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1194-95 (11th Cir. 2010) (discussing Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2469, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007)). The district court did not commit a procedural error in sentencing Stembridge.

We AFFIRM Stembridge’s sentence.