OPINION OF THE COURT

In this appeal, defendant Arsenio Reynoso contests a 30-month sentence imposed under a bargained-for guilty plea to possession with the intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Reynoso’s counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that, after a careful review of the case, he was unable to identify any non-frivolous issue for review. 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Counsel in an Anders situation must thoroughly search the record to uncover the best arguments for his client, refer to those portions of the record that might arguably support the appeal, and direct the Court to the relevant law. See United States v. Marvin, 211 F.3d 778 (3d Cir. 2000). We are satisfied that counsel has fulfilled his Anders obligations. Counsel’s brief addresses one issue, whether the District Court should have granted a greater departure. Because the District Court was aware of its discretion to depart downward, we lack jurisdiction to review the extent of the court’s departure. United States v. Stevens, 223 F.3d 239, 248 (3d Cir. 2000); United States v. Denardi, 892 F.2d 269, 271-72 (3d Cir. 1989). We find no other possible grounds for appeal, nor any basis for appeal with respect to sentencing.

We will affirm the judgment of conviction. We lack jurisdiction to review the downward departure issue. Defense counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.