MEMORANDUM **

David Rahimipoor Moghdam appeals his 177-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction to bank robbery, armed bank robbery, and use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d), and 924(c)(l)(A)(iii). Appointed counsel for Moghdam has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Edüd 493 (1967), stating there are no arguable issues for appeal, and a motion to withdraw from representation. Moghdam was notified of his right to respond to counsel’s motion to withdraw but has failed to do so. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

Counsel has correctly rejected as a potential issue for appeal whether the district court erred by granting a downward departure of only one level for Moghdam’s diminished capacity. As conceded by counsel, a defendant may not challenge on appeal the extent of a downward departure. See United States v. Vizcarra-Angulo, 904 F.2d 22, 23 (9th Cir. 1990).

In addition to evaluating the issue raised in counsel’s Anders brief, we have independently examined the record for appeal-able errors. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). Our review has failed to disclose any non-frivolous issues for appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the judgment is AFFIRMED.