Jeffrey W. Pettit appeals the district court’s 2 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits (DIB). We agree with the district court that substantial evidence supports the determination that Mr. Pettit is not entitled to DIB for the period at issue here, i.e., from February 2001 through March 2004. See Teague v..As-true, 638 F.3d 611, 614 (8th Cir. 2011) (de novo review). Specifically, we find that because the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) determination that Mr. Pettit’s subjective complaints were not entirely credible was based on several valid reasons, this determination is entitled to deference, see Mabry v. Colvin, 815 F.3d 386, 389 (8th Cir. 2016) (this court defers to credibility findings if they are supported by good reasons and substantial evidence); and that the ALJ’s determination of Mr, Pettit’s residual functional capacity (RFC) was also supported by the relevant evidence, see Boyd v. Colvin, 831 F.3d 1015, 1020 (8th Cir. 2016) (it is ALJ’s responsibility to determine RFC based on all relevant evidence: medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s own description of his limitations). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.