SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-appellant Ivan Boston (“Boston” or “defendant”) appeals from the District Court’s judgment of conviction, following a jury trial, for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). On appeal, Boston, challenges the firearm evidence introduced against him at trial and claims that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. 1 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

BACKGROUND

The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that Boston was arrested in the early morning hours of January 16, 2011, after two police officers observed him asleep at the wheel of a vehicle stopped at a traffic light. The officers noticed that Boston’s vehicle was running and in the “drive” position. Although he was asleep, Boston’s foot rested on the brake pedal and was the only thing preventing the vehicle from dangerously moving forward into the intersection. In the course of their subsequent conversation with Boston, the officers noted alcohol on his breath and other signs of intoxication. Boston was ordered out of his vehicle and, while standing outside of it, he began to reach toward his pockets. Before he could reach them, however, the officers searched his pockets, finding a semiautomatic firearm in one and a revolver in the other, and placed him under arrest.

On February 14, 2011, Boston was indicted by a federal grand jury for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Prior to trial, he submitted an affidavit that flatly contradicted the officers’ account of the events surrounding his arrest and moved to suppress the evidence of the firearms. Following testimony and oral argument before the District Court, Judge Irizarry denied defendant’s motion to suppress and the case proceeded to trial.

After a two-day trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict on September 14, 2011. At a sentencing hearing on April 11, 2012, the District Court accepted the Guidelines calculation of the U.S. Probation Office that defendant was subject to an adjusted offense level of 22, based in part on an obstruction of justice enhancement and a Criminal History Category of IV. 2 The District Court then considered whether a departure under Guidelines Section 4A1.3(a)(l) was appropriate and, in view of Boston’s lengthy criminal history, agreed with the recommendation in the Presen-tencing Report that it was. The District Court, therefore, adjusted Boston’s Criminal History to Category VI by counting two convictions for attempted robbery in the second degree that were otherwise *100 outside the Criminal History time period. This resulted in a Guidelines range of 84-105 months. The District Court then considered the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and determined that a non-Guidelines sentence was appropriate. In making this determination, the District Court considered the frequency and nature of Boston’s criminal acts, especially his violent acts, his numerous violations of parole and while incarcerated, his failure to reform after either lenient or harsh sentences, and his failure to take responsibility for, or to show remorse for, his most recent criminal conduct. The District Court ultimately sentenced Boston to a term of 120 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release.

This timely appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Boston once again challenges the firearm evidence introduced against him at trial and claims that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We review a district court’s ruling on a suppression motion for clear error as to the district court’s factual findings and de novo as to questions of law. United States v. Rodriguez, 356 F.3d 254, 257 (2d Cir. 2004). The evidentiary record is reviewed in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Rosa, 626 F.3d 56, 61 (2d Cir. 2010). We review a defendant’s sentence using an abuse-of-diseretion standard. See United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also In re Sims, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting that a district court abuses its discretion if' it “base[s] its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or render[s] a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). Our review typically consists of a two-step process. First we “must [] ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence — including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). “[W]e then review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, reversing only when the trial court’s sentence ‘cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.’ ” United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174, 179 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Cavera, 550 F.3d at 189).

We consider Boston’s arguments in turn.

A.

Boston first claims that the police stop of his vehicle at the traffic intersection was not supported by probable cause and that there was no support that he was intoxicated. Upon a review of the record, we find this argument, which was raised before the District Court in the first instance, to lack merit. Both the District Court and the jury were entitled to credit the testimony of the arresting officers rather than accept Boston’s version of the facts. Indeed, the District Court noted that the government produced a recording of a prison telephone call from Boston to an associate, shortly after his arrest, admitting that he had fallen asleep at the traffic light and was “juiced.” Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court did *101 not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress the fruits of the search conducted contemporaneously to his arrest.

B.

Boston also claims that his sentence is proeedurally and substantive unreasonable. 3 Having conducted a de novo review of the record, we conclude that defendant’s sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment is proeedurally and substantively reasonable, substantially for the reasons given by the District Court in its thorough and well-reasoned oral rulings at the defendant’s sentencing hearings of April 11, 2012 and May 10, 2012.

CONCLUSION

Having reviewed the record, we have considered all of defendant’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the June 20, 2012 judgment of conviction of the District Court.