interest exists here; the surety has a $75,000 financial obligation composed of two separate bail bonds. And there is also little question that there is a significant governmental interest here: the efficient operation of judicial and bail-bond systems and the need to ensure the attendance of defendants at court proceedings. We conclude that there was a complete failure to provide procedural safeguards to protect appellants’ interests in this case because of the failure of the administrator to provide any notice to appellants that the bond was initially forfeited. This failure to follow rule 702(e) meant that appellants never knew that defendant had absconded and issued a second bond without notice of the first forfeiture. Cf. McElwain v. Van Beek, 447 N.W.2d 442, 447 (Minn.App.1989) (<HOLDING>), review denied (Minn. Dec. 20, 1989).
holding that an alien must establish that he was prejudiced by the alleged error in order to prevail on a due process claim holding that the defendant did not require advance notice where he could not show how he was prejudiced by late notice or how he could have been helped by additional notice holding the tenday requirement was ministerial and the defendant failed to show he was prejudiced by the delay recognizing that in order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel a movant must show that he was prejudiced by his counsels performance recognizing in summaryjudgment context that party must show he was prejudiced by lack of notice or other procedural irregularities to prove he is entitled to relief from district courts ruling