United States v. Orlando Jones, 697 F. App'x 205

Orlando Jones was tried by jury and convicted of armed bank robbery and aiding and abetting under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(d), 2; acquitted on firearm-related charges (§§ 924(c), 922(g)(1)).
Sentenced to 282 months’ imprisonment; appealed pro se and through counsel.
Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious issues but noting a potential inconsistency between guilty verdict on armed robbery and acquittals on firearm charges.
Jones filed pro se supplemental briefs challenging sufficiency of the evidence, verdict inconsistency, the district court’s refusal to answer a jury question, and the career-offender enhancement.
The Fourth Circuit granted supplementation of the pro se brief, reviewed the record under Anders, and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an acquittal on firearm charges renders an armed-robbery conviction invalid due to inconsistent verdicts	Jones argued the jury verdicts were factually inconsistent, undermining his armed-robbery conviction	Government argued inconsistent verdicts are permissible and do not invalidate convictions	Court held inconsistent verdicts are permitted; acquittals on firearm charges do not invalidate armed-robbery conviction
Sufficiency of the evidence for armed bank robbery	Jones contended the evidence did not support conviction	Government maintained the evidence supported conviction	Court rejected Jones’s sufficiency challenge after reviewing the record
District court’s refusal to answer a jury question	Jones argued the court erred by declining to answer the jury question	Government argued the court acted within its discretion	Court found no reversible error in the court’s handling of the jury question
Application of career-offender sentencing enhancement	Jones argued the enhancement was improperly applied	Government supported the enhancement	Court upheld the sentencing determination

Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (establishes that inconsistent jury verdicts are permissible)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (procedure when counsel believes appeal is frivolous)
Powell v. United States, 469 U.S. 57 (courts will not upset inconsistent verdicts because jury may act from lenity or compromise)
Louthian v. United States, 756 F.3d 295 (discusses permissible explanations for inconsistent verdicts)
Hassan v. United States, 742 F.3d 104 (notes jury may return inconsistent verdicts)
United States v. Mitchell, 146 F.3d 1338 (upholding armed-robbery conviction despite acquittal on § 924(c) charge)
United States v. McCall, 85 F.3d 1193 (same principle applied)
United States v. Wallace, 212 F.3d 1000 (no inconsistency between guilty for armed robbery and not guilty for using a firearm)