¶1 A1 Stevenson appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the determination of *616 the Commissioner of Social Security that he is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. We find that the Administrative Law Judge correctly applied the relevant legal standards in evaluating the medical evidence; in determining Stevenson’s residual functional capacity; and in assessing the credibility of Stevenson’s complaints of fatigue. See Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir.1994). Moreover, the record provides substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner’s conclusion that Stevenson is not disabled. See id. Stevenson’s case does not present circumstances under which the ALJ is required to make a separate finding that Stevenson is able to maintain employment over a significant period of time. See Watson v. Barnhart, 288 F.3d 212 (5th Cir.2002); Dunbar v. Barnhart, 330 F.3d 670, 672 (5th Cir.2003).
¶2 AFFIRMED.