
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. CARLOS Garcia, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-4598.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 19, 2004.
    Decided March 5, 2004.
    David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell Barnes Cauthen, III, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Carlos Garcia appeals his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States without permission of the United States Attorney General, after having previously been deported subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000). Garcia’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising one issue but stating that he finds no meritorious grounds for appeal. Although notified of his right to do so, Garcia has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether the district court erred in denying Garcia’s request for a downward departure. A defendant may obtain review of a district court’s decision not to depart downward only when the district court mistakenly believed it lacked authority to depart. United States v. Edwards, 188 F.3d 230, 238-39 (4th Cir.1999). Garcia does not argue that the court failed to understand its authority to depart, nor does the record disclose any uncertainty on the court’s part. Accordingly, Garcia’s claim is not reviewable on appeal. Edwards, 188 F.3d at 238-39.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Garcia’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED  