the 4:30 p.m. scheduled ending point. The court imposed no limitation on the scope of cross-examination, but cautioned counsel that time was of the essence and to “use [his] time however [he] deem[ed] appropriate”. Additionally, although counsel objected to being stopped at 5:04 p.m., he did not request additional time or attempt, in any way, to then make arrangements to have the witness return the following day. Based upon the circumstances, the court did not abuse its broad discretion in holding Plaintiff to the agreed-upon schedule. ¶ 17 Additionally, to merit reversal, a party “must show they incurred some harm as a result of [a] court’s time limitations.” Brown, 194 Ariz. at 91, ¶ 30, 977 P.2d at 813; see also State v. Dunlap, 187 Ariz. 441, 450, 930 P.2d 518, 527 (App.1996) (<HOLDING>). Defendant argues that, in order to
holding that proof of prejudice is generally a necessary but not sufficient element of a due process claim and that the due process inquiry must consider the reasons for  the prejudice quoting united states v lovasco 431 us 783 790 97 sct 2044 52 led2d 752 1977 recognizing that inmates have a right to receive legal advice from other inmates only when it is a necessary means for ensuring a reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed violations of fundamental constitutional rights to the courts  quoting bounds v smith 430 us 817 825 97 sct 1491 52 led2d 72 1977 holding petitioner must demonstrate error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim holding petitioner must show prejudice to prevail on due process claim holding that an alien must show error and substantial prejudice in order to prevail on a due process claim