Vaughn

*710 MEMORANDUM **

Defendant-Appellee William Anthony Vaughn was convicted of being a felon in possession in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm.

Vaughn argues that Officer Quinn lacked reasonable suspicion to detain—or attempt to detain—Vaughn in the parking lot, as required by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). This argument fails. Officer Quinn was given three descriptions of a man with a gun causing a disturbance at an apartment complex. Although the three descriptions were not identical, they were, taken together, sufficiently descriptive of Vaughn’s appearance. According to Officer Quinn, Vaughn was the only person in the crowd of twenty gathered in the parking lot who matched the totality of the callers’ descriptions. Officer Quinn’s suspicion that Vaughn was the gunman was reasonable, given the totality of the circumstances. See United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 , 122 S.Ct. 744 , 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002).

Officer Quinn had sufficient suspicion that crime was afoot, that Vaughn was responsible for it, and that he was armed with a gun—all of which would…