OPINION

Kenneth O’Brian Powell appeals the district court’s judgment sentencing him to 240 months imprisonment and sixty months imprisonment, to run concurrently, for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1201 (2000) and 18 U.S.C. § 2262 (2000), respectively. Powell’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). Although counsel states that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, he challenges the extent of the district court’s downward departure from the sentencing guidelines. Neither the Government nor Powell filed a brief. In accordance with Anders, we have considered the brief and examined the entire record for meritorious issues.

On appeal, Powell’s counsel argues that the extent of the district court’s downward departure from the sentencing guidelines is inadequate. We do not have jurisdiction to review the extent of a district court’s downward departure unless such departure results in a sentence that violates the law or is an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines. See United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir. 1995). The district court reduced Powell’s Criminal History Category from VI to V, thus placing him in a sentencing range of 235 to 293 months imprisonment. The statutory maximum penalty is life imprisonment pursuant to § 1201 and five years imprisonment pursuant to § 2262. Thus, Powell’s concurrent sentences of 240 months and sixty months imprisonment do not exceed the statutory maximum penalties therefor, and they fall clearly within the low end of the applicable guideline range. Therefore, because his sentence is neither a violation of the law nor the result of an incorrect application of the guidelines, we do not have jurisdiction to review the extent of the district court’s downward departure.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from represen *544 tation. 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.