a defendant show actual prejudice, as opposed to mere speculative prejudice, ... but also that he show that any actual prejudice was substantial—that he was meaningfully impaired in his ability to defend against the state’s charges to such an extent that the disposition of the criminal proceeding was likely affected. 94 F.3d at 907 (emphasis in original). Dimming memories and the passage of time alone are insufficient to establish the level of prejudice necessary to show the denial of due process. Marion, 404 U.S. at 326, 92 S.Ct. 455; accord U.S. v. McDougal, 133 F.3d 1110, 1113 (8th Cir.1998) (stating that “the mere ‘loss of or impairment of memories does not constitute actual prejudice for purposes of the [D]ue [Pjrocess [Cjlause’ ”); U.S. v. Beszborn, 21 F.3d 62, 67 (5th Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>). Where n of “lost evidence, impaired memories
holding that twoyear preindictment delay did not violate defendants due process rights since government promptly sought indictment upon securing sufficient evidence holding that prescription delay was not violation because plaintiff could not establish detrimental effect of delay in treatment holding that the preindictment delay was a due process violation because actual prejudice was shown and the state had shown absolutely no need for any investigative delay recognizing that vjague assertions of lost witnesses faded memories or misplaced documents are insufficient to establish a due process violation from preindictment delay holding that similar allegations were insufficient to state a due process claim