United States v. LONG-PARHAM, 183 F.Supp.3d 746

Long-Parham was indicted federally for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon based on a firearm found when Pennsylvania parole authorities took him into custody on January 20, 2015.
He had been originally sentenced in state court, paroled on December 28, 2010, with a maximum parole date of March 24, 2013 after a recommitment; while on parole (Jan–Dec 2012) he engaged in criminal conduct leading to later state charges.
On January 20, 2015 Long-Parham pled guilty in state court to participating in a corrupt organization; the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (the Board) issued a warrant to commit and detain him the same day based on crimes committed while he was on parole.
Long-Parham moved to suppress the firearm, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to issue the warrant because his parole had expired before his conviction, so his arrest and the search were Fourth Amendment violations (fruit of the poisonous tree).
He also sought pretrial relief: Rule 404(b)/609 notice of other bad-act or conviction evidence, early Jencks production, and broad discovery (Brady/Rule 16).
The court held the Board had authority to recommit for crimes committed while on parole even if conviction occurred after the maximum sentence date, denied suppression, and resolved the discovery/timing requests (granted in part, denied in part).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of Board warrant / suppression	Gov: Board has statutory jurisdiction to recommit parolee for crimes committed while on parole	Long-Parham: Parole expired before conviction so Board lacked authority; arrest/search unlawful	Court: Board had authority under PA law; arrest and search lawful; suppression denied
Rule 404(b) / notice of other-act evidence	Gov: will provide 404(b) notice pretrial	Long-Parham: requests disclosure now of 404(b) evidence	Court: ordered gov't to provide 404(b) notice ten days before trial
Rule 609 / impeachment convictions notice	Gov: provided criminal history and presentence report; will use 609 if appropriate	Long-Parham: seeks specific notice of prior convictions to be used for impeachment	Court: disclosure of criminal history satisfied; gov't must provide reasonable notice per Rule 609 when applicable
Jencks / Brady / Rule 16 timing of disclosures	Gov: no Jencks obligation until witness testifies; will provide Jencks 4 days before trial; complies with Rule 16 and Brady	Long-Parham: seeks Jencks 14 days before trial and broad early Brady/Rule 16 production	Court: encouraged (not compelled) Jencks disclosure 4 days before trial; ordered production of Rule 16 and Brady material (exculpatory immediately; impeachment Brady by 5 days pretrial); other requests beyond Rule 16/Brady/Jencks denied

Price v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 117 A.3d 362 (Pa. Commw. 2015) (Board retains jurisdiction to recommit for crimes committed while on parole even if conviction occurs after maximum sentence date)
Miskovitch v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 77 A.3d 66 (Pa. Commw. 2013) (same principle; Board authority to recommit post-max-date for crimes committed on parole)
Adams v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 885 A.2d 1121 (Pa. Commw. 2005) (Board may recommit parolee convicted of crimes committed while on parole after expiration of maximum sentence)
United States v. Weaver, 267 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2001) (Jencks Act framework; gov't need not produce witness statements until after testimony)
United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227 (3d Cir. 2012) (purpose of Jencks disclosure and recognition that prosecutors often voluntarily produce Jencks material pretestimony)
United States v. Ramos, 27 F.3d 65 (3d Cir. 1994) (scope of criminal discovery limited to Rule 16 and statutory/due-process material)
United States v. Higgs, 713 F.2d 39 (3d Cir. 1983) (Brady impeachment material must be disclosed in time for effective use at trial)
United States v. Starusko, 729 F.2d 256 (3d Cir. 1984) (encourages early production of Brady material to avoid trial delay)