PER CURIAM.
Nancy G. Wilkinson appeals her conviction and sentence following her guilty plea to one count of aiding and abetting embezzlement from an organization receiving federal funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 666(a)(1), 2 (2000). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which he states that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Although notified of her right to submit a pro se supplemental brief, Wilkinson has not done so.
Counsel presents for review the district court’s failure to depart downward based on Wilkinson’s family ties and responsibilities. This court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court’s refusal to depart downward unless that refusal is based on the court’s mistaken belief that it lacked power to depart. United States v. Edwards, 188 F.3d 230, 238 (4th Cir.1999). The record shows that the district court knew that it had the authority to depart but concluded that such a departure was not warranted. Therefore, this issue is not reviewable. United States v. Matthews, 209 F.3d 338, 352-53 (4th Cir.2000).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Wilkinson’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her 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 a 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.