
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sang Min LEE, a/k/a Sangmin Lee, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4592.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 17, 2002.
    Decided Jan. 30, 2002.
    Vaughan S. Winborne, Jr., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, David J. Cortes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Sang Min Lee was convicted by a jury for aiding and abetting armed bank robbery and was sentenced to eighty-seven months incarceration. He appeals on the grounds that the jury’s refusal to convict him of conspiracy, count one of the indictment, proves that there is insufficient evidence to support the armed robbery charge. Specifically, Lee argues that the facts upon which the jury relied to find him guilty of armed robbery were rejected by the jury when it found him not guilty of conspiracy.

The Supreme Court has held that a jury’s verdict is not reviewable for internal inconsistencies. United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 68-69, 105 S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984). See also United States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595, 606 (4th Cir.1998). Therefore, even if the jury found the facts supported one crime, but not the other, its verdict is granted broad deference. Further, there is sufficient evidence on the record to support Lee’s conviction The Government presented several witnesses who described Lee’s role in the crime, from its planning stages to his ultimate arrest, as well as physical evidence connecting Lee to the crime. Therefore, the jury had ample evidence upon which to base its decision.

We affirm Lee’s conviction and sentence. 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.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.  