[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-12510

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARIEL VALERO, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 0:23-cr-60020-CMA-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-12510 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 06/14/2024 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 23-12510

Before BRASHER, ABUDU, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Ariel Valero appeals his convictions for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1)(a)(ii). He argues that the evidence was insufficient to 

prove that he robbed a bank and brandished a gun during the robbery. After thorough review, we affirm.

We review de novo whether there is sufficient evidence to 

support a conviction. United States v. Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280, 1284 

(11th Cir. 2009). In so doing, we view the record in the light most 

favorable to the government, resolving all reasonable inferences in 

favor of the verdict. Id. The evidence will be sufficient to support 

a conviction if “a reasonable trier of fact could find that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 1284–85 

(quotations omitted).

The test for sufficiency is the same regardless of whether the 

evidence is direct or circumstantial, but where the government relied on circumstantial evidence, reasonable inferences must support the conviction. United States v. Martin, 803 F.3d 581, 587 (11th 

Cir. 2015). We will assume that the jury resolved all questions of 

credibility in a manner supporting the verdict. Jiminez, 564 F.3d at 

1285. The evidence need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis 

of innocence for a reasonable jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable 

doubt. United States v. Cruz-Valdez, 773 F.2d 1541, 1545 (11th Cir. 

USCA11 Case: 23-12510 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 06/14/2024 Page: 2 of 5
23-12510 Opinion of the Court 3

1985) (en banc). Instead, the jury may choose among alternative,

reasonable interpretations of the evidence. Id.

A defendant violates 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) if he uses force and 

violence, or intimidation, to take property from a bank. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2113(a). Section 924(c) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code prohibits the 

use of a firearm in furtherance of any crime of violence. Id.

§ 924(c)(1)(A).

We’ve held that a conviction for brandishing a gun during 

the commission of a crime, under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), “may be sustained by lay witness testimony that a defendant carried or used a 

gun.” United States v. Hunt, 187 F.3d 1269, 1271 (11th Cir. 1999). 

We further held that the government need not “show to a scientific 

certainty that a defendant is carrying a device that fires projectiles 

by means of an explosive” nor “offer the gun itself into evidence or 

produce an expert witness to identify a firearm.” Id. (quotations 

omitted).

Here, the government presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict that Valero was guilty on both counts beyond a reasonable doubt. Jiminez, 564 F.3d at 1284–85. As for the 

bank robbery charge, multiple bank employees testified to Valero’s 

use of force and violence or intimidation to take property from the 

bank, recalling that a masked man who met Valero’s description --

as a “muscular” man with large biceps, around 5’9” and Hispanic -

- had robbed the bank at gunpoint; surveillance video from inside 

the bank corroborated their testimonies; and the bank teller who 

turned over $30,095.99 to the robber said that he was so 

USCA11 Case: 23-12510 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 06/14/2024 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 23-12510

intimidated that he feared for his life. Further, one of the bank employees testified that the robber left the crime scene on a bicycle, 

which had been parked outside the bank’s door. Consistent with 

this, law enforcement testified that surveillance video from outside 

the bank confirmed that the robber arrived at, and left, the bank on 

a bicycle, and then abandoned the bicycle shortly after the robbery. 

Law enforcement added that they swabbed the bicycle’s seat for 

DNA, served a warrant to obtain Valero’s DNA, and sent both samples to the FBI to determine whether the samples matched. The 

FBI forensic examiner who compared the DNA samples testified 

that it was “54 sextillion times more likely” that Valero contributed 

the DNA on the bicycle seat than an unknown, unrelated individual. 

Notably, Valero denied ever touching the bike to law enforcement; so when his statement was disproven by DNA testing, 

his “false exculpatory statement[] made pre-trial,” if disbelieved by 

the jury, could have been considered as substantive evidence of his

guilt. See United States v. Hughes, 840 F.3d 1368, 1385 (11th Cir. 

2016). In addition, shortly after the police told Valero they were 

testing his DNA, he moved to Arizona, which, as the jury was correctly instructed, also may demonstrate “consciousness of guilt 

concerning the crime charged.” United States v. Blakely, 960 F.2d 

996, 1001 (11th Cir. 1992). Thus, the record contains ample evidence to allow the jury to infer that Valero used force and violence, 

or intimidation, to take property from a bank. 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). 

USCA11 Case: 23-12510 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 06/14/2024 Page: 4 of 5
23-12510 Opinion of the Court 5

As for the brandishing charge, there was sufficient evidence 

that Valero was carrying or using a firearm during the robberies 

because multiple witnesses testified that the robber carried a gun. 

Id. § 924(c)(1)(A). The record reflects that two of the bank employees testified that they believed the gun was real, while a third employee said that he was unsure. Further, one employee testified 

that the robber pointed the gun at the bank teller as he demanded 

money. And as we’ve held before, lay witness testimony that a defendant used or carried a gun, as here, is sufficient for a conviction 

for using or carrying a gun during a crime of violence, in violation 

of § 924(c). Hunt, 187 F.3d at 1270. Further, the government was 

not required to offer the gun into evidence or show, with “scientific 

certainty,” that the gun was real. Id.

In short, reasonable inferences support the jury’s guilty verdict on both counts. Although no witness could positively identify 

Valero as the person who robbed the bank at gunpoint and left the 

crime scene on a bicycle, the evidence does not need to exclude 

every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Cruz-Valdez, 773 F.2d at 

1545. The jury instead was free to reasonably interpret the evidence described above to find Valero guilty. Id. Accordingly, we 

affirm.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 23-12510 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 06/14/2024 Page: 5 of 5