Demario Palmer directly appeals after - he pled guilty to a drug offense, and the district court 1 sentenced him to a term of imprisonment below the calculated Guidelines range. His 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 improperly denied Palmer’s request for a downward departure based on an overstated criminal history, and that Palmer’s sentence is substantively unreasonable.

The denial of Palmer’s request for a downward departure is not reviewable on *592 appeal, as the district court recognized its authority to depart, and there is no indication that the district court had any unconstitutional motive in denying the request. See United States v. Anderson, 570 F.3d 1025, 1034 (8th Cir. 2009). As to the substantive reasonableness of Palmer’s sentence, we conclude, upon careful review, that no abuse of discretion occurred. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 683 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

In addition, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivo-lous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.