OPINION

Gerald Alonzo Moore pled guilty to two separate one-count indictments charging him with two different bank robberies. Moore’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), in which he represents that there are no arguable issues of merit in this appeal. Nevertheless, in his brief, counsel addresses the possibility that the district court should have granted Moore’s motion for a downward departure. Although advised of his right to do so, Moore did not file a pro se supplemental brief. Because we find *185 that the district court’s decision is not reviewable, we dismiss the appeal.

A district court’s refusal to grant a downward departure is not reviewable on appeal unless the court erroneously believed that it lacked the authority to depart. United States v. Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 30-31 (4th Cir. 1990). The record here clearly shows the district court recognized that it had the authority to grant Moore’s motion, but declined to do so under the circumstances.

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for appeal. The 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 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 therefore dismiss Moore’s appeal. We also deny counsel’s current motion to withdraw. 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.

DISMISSED.