Kenneth L. Moses appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress when it determined that the decision to stop his vehicle was reasonable because the officer had probable cause to believe that a traffic violation had occurred. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, United States v. Foy, 28 F.3d 464, 474 (5th Cir. 1994), reviewing the district court’s factual findings for clear error, United States v. Cantu, 230 F.3d 148, 150 (5th Cir. 2000), and the legality of the investigative stop de novo. United States v. Jaquez, 421 F.3d 338, 341 (5th Cir. 2005).

*137 The district court found that Moses’s driving, as described by the arresting officer at the suppression hearing, violated Louisiana’s careless operation of a vehicle statute, La.Rev.Stat. Ann. 32:58. As such, the district court implicitly found credible the officer’s testimony regarding the manner in which Moses was operating his vehicle. Moses challenges that testimony as implausible based on the physical evidence. Our review of the testimony and physical evidence, however, does not support a determination that the district court clearly erred in finding the officer’s testimony credible. See United States v. Logan, 949 F.2d 1370, 1377 (5th Cir. 1991).

AFFIRMED.