not err in finding that A.H.’s arrest was supported by probable cause. See Wilson, 212 F.3d at 786 (finding that victim and eyewitness statements to the effect that a robbery had occurred and that the defendants had committed the robbery supported a finding of probable cause for the defendant’s arrest). B. Due Process and Pre-Hearing Discovery A.H. argues that his due process rights were violated during the transfer hearing because the GVI did not provide him before the trial, his due process rights will be preserved. United States v. Starusko, 729 F. 2d 256, 262 (3d Cir. 1984) (“No denial of due process occurs if Brady material is disclosed in time for its effective use at trial.”) (quoting United States v. Higgs, 713 F.2d 39, 44 (3d Cir. 1983)); see also N.G., 119 F. Supp. 2d at 529 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, A.H.’s due process rights were
holding that a lie by defendant to government regarding his past criminal history was exculpatory material under brady holding evidence not to be material within the meaning of brady when the evidence did not eliminate the defendant as the perpetrator holding that the alleged brady material was merely cumulative to the significant impeachment that already occurred during trial so there was no prejudice for a brady violation holding that an appellants due process rights were not violated when he did not receive brady material before his transfer hearing because he will be able to make effective use of any brady material at trial holding that an fbi agents rough notes of an interview of the defendant were not brady material because there was no independent showing that they contained evidence that was material to the defendants guilt or innocence