Trista Espinoza directly appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed upon granting the government’s motion for a downward departure under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, based upon Espinoza’s substantial assistance. Her counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court — after granting the government’s downward-departure motion and reducing Espinoza’s sentence below the statutory minimum — should have considered 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors unrelated to her substantial assistance, in order to reduce her sentence further. Espinoza also has a pending motion for appointment of new counsel.

Upon careful review, this court concludes that counsel’s argument is unavailing. See United States v. Billue, 576 F.3d 898, 902-04 (8th Cir. 2009) (in discussing district court’s limited authority under § 3553(e) and § 5K1.1 to impose sentence below statutory minimum, emphasizing that, in ruling on government’s downward-departure motion based on substantial assistance, court may consider only factors related to defendant’s substantial assistance to government, and that, upon reducing sentence below statutory minimum, court may not use § 3553(a) factors to decrease sentence further). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, Espinoza’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.