Rosenthal (1958) lists the bibliography of previous translation efforts, the only relevant for Marx:
2) A complete French translation, under the title of Prolegomenes historiques d'Ibn Khaldoun, was published by William MacGuckin de Slane on the basis of Quatremere's edition and with comparison of the Paris manuscripts used by Quatremere, the first Bulaq edition, and the Turkish translation (in part). The three volumes appeared in Paris in the years 1862, 1865, and 1868, as Vols. xix to xxi of the Notices et Extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliotheque Imperiale.
De Slane did an altogether admirable job of presenting a highly readable and, in the main, accurate translation of the work. The "freedom" of his version has often been unjustly censured, for it was intentional, and a "free" translation is perfectly legitimate for a work with the stylistic character of the Muqaddimah. There are occasional mistakes of translation, some of them caused by the difficulty of the subject matter and the language, others of a sort that might easily have been avoided. Explanatory footnotes are sparse, and de Slane usually did not bother to indicate the sources for his statements. However, the concluding words of R. Dozy's review of de Slane's work still stand: "Rarely has so difficult a book been translated
However Rosenthal’s scholarship is manifestly deficient in his failure to refer to Hammer-Purgstall’s translated extracts of 1810. Given this deficiency, and the presence of extracts of unknown contents, it is not impossible that Marx was exposed to the social relations focused historiography of Khaldun during Marx’s more voracious periods. Marx did read Hammer-Purgstall on other topics ( https://www.marxists.org/cestina/marx-engels/1854/061854a.html#7a ) but I’ve not found evidence of his exposure to Khaldun, nor of the contents of the extracts.
Khaldun is not, however, appearing in Marx’s works at a site: search of Marxists.org. Now Marxists.org isn’t MEGA but it is a good start. Khaldun appears in Korsch (1938) and other interwar marxists in a haigiographic throw away along side for example Vico. The lack of more extensive hagiography means that Marx hadn’t cited him in major published works (the notebooks and MEGA being post WWII remember).
While Marx is certainly a racist prig who avoids citing his antecedents unless he can destroy them utterly, I can’t see how Khaldun would not have been cited in full text searchable texts archived by marxists.org if Marx had been influenced by Khaldun in his production of historical materialism. This does not rule out a throw away text note from the notebooks, but Marx was fixated on Europeans.
So sadly that’s a “highly probable no.” Marx was voracious but his orientalist work was dilettantish at best. It is most probable that convergent evolution is the explanation, rather than influence, is the explanation. The chief evidence